What if love became infrastructure 

September 28, 2026 Leave a comment

I got the title (more like borrowed) from a WhatsApp group where a member shared the theme of the ‘At One Impact Week 2026’ conference in Singapore. This one powerful phrase, ‘what if love became infrastructure,’ made me think deeply from romantic and philosophical perspectives initially, and finally from an economist’s viewpoint, and I ended up doing a visioning exercise (sort of) for the future. Ideating and eventually writing this essay took me back down memory lane when I was a student of Social Planning.

We think of infrastructure as something tangible, visible and measurable, like roads, bridges, electricity, water systems, digital networks and financial systems. We know how to calculate their construction costs, estimate their economic returns, and argue over who should pay for them. We even understand that infrastructure can determine the destiny of societies and can alter the trajectory of an entire generation. But there is another infrastructure without which none of these systems ultimately works, and yet it rarely appears in our economic imagination. It is invisible, difficult to measure and almost impossible to commodify. It is love, not romantic love, though that matters too, but the broader human capacity to care, to notice, to remain, to take responsibility for another person’s wellbeing. We have traditionally treated love as a private emotion and have failed to recognise it as a public resource.

Every society runs on enormous quantities of unpaid love, like a parent getting up in the middle of the night for a sick child, or a daughter accompanying an ageing parent to hospital. However, none of these acts is generally counted as economic output. They do not appear in national accounts and are not part of productivity statistics. However, if we remove it altogether, hospitals will become more crowded because there will be nobody to care for people after discharge. Children will require more formal intervention because fewer adults will be available to support them. Elder-care systems will become unaffordable. Workplaces will become less resilient because employees have no one to rely upon outside them. We have created elaborate systems to compensate for the absence of care while rarely acknowledging the care that prevents those systems from collapsing in the first place.

The more efficiently we organise modern economic life, the more we seem to separate it from the relationships that make life worth living. We have become remarkably good at producing things and increasingly uncertain about how to sustain one another. We can deliver almost anything to a doorstep within minutes, but we cannot guarantee that someone will sit beside an elderly person who is lonely. We can communicate instantly with someone on the other side of the planet, but millions of people live without a person they can call when they are frightened. We can build increasingly intelligent machines, but many people struggle to find another human being willing to listen without looking at a screen. The technological revolution has reduced distance while, in some unexpected ways, increased emotional distance. Perhaps this is not a contradiction, and perhaps we simply solved the wrong problem. We became extraordinarily good at connecting devices, markets and information, while leaving the architecture of human connection largely to chance.

If love were infrastructure, loneliness would become an infrastructure deficit. That may sound absurd today, as we are used to thinking of loneliness as a psychological condition, a personal problem or sometimes a consequence of individual choices. But imagine applying the logic we already use elsewhere. If a community has no reliable public transport, we do not tell every resident to become better at walking, instead, we investigate the transport system. If people have no access to clean water, we do not blame them for being thirsty. If an entire generation has inadequate access to education, we do not simply advise young people to become more self-motivated. We build schools and institutions. Why, then, when millions of people experience profound social isolation, do we so quickly individualise the problem? Perhaps some loneliness is personal and inevitable. But some of it is produced by the environments we have built, like cities designed around cars rather than encounters, housing designed around privacy rather than community, workplaces designed around productivity rather than belonging, digital platforms designed around engagement rather than connection, and economic systems that leave people with less time for the relationships they depend upon.

The future city may therefore have to answer a question that today’s urban planning rarely asks if the city make it easy or difficult to belong? A well-designed neighbourhood might not simply be one where people can reach work quickly. It might be one where an elderly person can walk to a park, a child can meet other children, a young professional can enter a community without already knowing someone, and a person living alone has places to go where consumption is not the price of admission. Public libraries, community kitchens, parks, sports facilities, cultural centres, pedestrian streets and shared spaces are not mere amenities but relational infrastructure. Their purpose would be partly to create the conditions under which relationships can emerge naturally. Nobody can be ordered to make a friend. Governments cannot manufacture affection, but governments can certainly create environments in which human beings are more likely to meet one another, spend time together and develop trust.

This would require us to rethink the economics of care. Our economic systems are designed to value what enters markets. Care becomes visible when it is professionalised and paid, like a nurse, childcare worker, therapist, home-care worker, etc. But when the same work is performed by a spouse, parent, sibling, friend or neighbour, its economic value often disappears. What we fail to measure, we tend to underinvest in. And what we underinvest in eventually becomes a crisis. The care economy is therefore not an alternative to the productive economy; rather, it is one of its foundations. Every employee who arrives at work has already been sustained by some network of care. Every entrepreneur has had someone who tolerated their uncertainty. Every successful professional has, somewhere along the way, benefited from someone else’s patience, encouragement, childcare, emotional support or practical help. Economic independence is rarely as independent as we like to imagine.

Perhaps the next stage of capitalism will involve recognising this by redesigning institutions around the reality that people have caring responsibilities. Not by putting a price on love itself, because the moment love becomes a transaction, we risk destroying precisely what makes it valuable. Parental leave, elder care, flexible working, community services and mental-health support are not corporate generosity or welfare expenditure but investments in the infrastructure of human capability. The question would no longer be how much care we can extract from individuals before they burn out, but how we can design economies that reproduce care rather than consume it.

The 20th century built welfare states around the assumption that governments could provide a substantial share of social security. And now, the 21st century is discovering that governments cannot provide human presence, which is increasingly scarce. As populations around the world age and families become smaller, geographically dispersed and increasingly mobile, the question of who will provide everyday human care will become one of the defining social questions of the century.

We are approaching a world in which machines can converse, remember, personalise and simulate empathy with extraordinary sophistication. An AI companion may be available 24 hours a day, never become bored, never interrupt and never judge. For millions of lonely people, this may provide genuine comfort. There is nothing inherently tragic about that. However, if machines become exceptionally good at giving us the feeling of being understood, will we become less willing to tolerate the inconvenience of understanding another human being?

Human relationships are inefficient as they demand time, contain misunderstandings, and require compromise. Other people have needs that compete with ours, and they disappoint us, change, and sometimes even leave. But these inconveniences are not defects in the human system but are more part of what relationships teach us. A machine can perhaps simulate unconditional attention; another human being offers the possibility of mutual responsibility. The challenge for technology, therefore, should not be to replace human relationships but to protect the conditions under which they can flourish. The best AI may ultimately be the AI that saves time for us by reducing bureaucracy for doctors, helping families care for distant parents, assisting teachers, making public services easier to navigate and freeing people from repetitive work. Technology should ideally expand the space available for human presence rather than fill that space itself.

If this sounds utopian, consider how many things that once seemed private have already become legitimate subjects of public policy. We once treated literacy as an individual matter, and now we build education systems. We once treated disease as fate, and now we build healthcare systems. We once treated poverty as personal failure, and now we debate social protection. Our definition of what society owes its members has expanded repeatedly. Perhaps relational wellbeing will be the next frontier.

Imagine a future national wellbeing report that contains a metric nobody takes seriously today: the capacity to care. It might measure how much time people have for family, whether older people have regular social contact, whether young people have trusted adults, how many neighbourhoods possess accessible community spaces, whether workers can take time off for caregiving without economic punishment and whether people feel that they belong somewhere. Imagine a company reporting not only employee turnover but whether its organisational culture leaves people with enough time and psychological capacity to maintain lives outside work. Imagine investors recognising that communities with high levels of trust and social connection are more resilient in crises. These ideas may sound soft compared with infrastructure spending today. But history repeatedly demonstrates that societies often collapse because the relationships holding them together become brittle.

Love, in this broader sense, is demanding and requires boundaries, accountability and difficult choices. A society organised around love would not be one in which everyone agrees with everyone else or where harm is excused because the perpetrator is human. It would be one in which disagreement does not automatically turn the other person into an enemy, where vulnerability does not become a source of shame and where the dignity of a person is not entirely dependent on their economic usefulness. It would ask a different and radical political question: What do we owe one another?

Perhaps this is where the idea of love as infrastructure becomes most disruptive. Infrastructure is usually associated with physical capital, but civilisation also accumulates relational capital, like trust, friendship, community, reputation and reciprocity. The ability to call someone in a crisis is a form of wealth. Knowing that someone will notice when you disappear is a form of security. Having people who will help you when your circumstances change is resilience. These things are not equally distributed. Some people inherit enormous reservoirs of relational capital through families, communities and social networks, while others inherit almost none. We talk endlessly about inequality of income and increasingly about inequality of opportunity. Perhaps it’s time we should also talk about inequality of belonging.

The most interesting possibility is that love may eventually become a new way of thinking about development itself. It will be a recognition that human beings are profoundly relational creatures and that any civilisation that ignores this will eventually pay for it through other systems like healthcare, welfare, policing, education, mental-health services and lost productivity. What we fail to provide through relationships, we eventually attempt to provide through institutions, often at vastly greater cost.

And perhaps the deepest irony is that we already know how to build this infrastructure. We do not need a revolutionary technology. We need to rediscover ordinary human practices that modern life has made increasingly difficult, like sitting with someone, listening without checking the phone, knowing the names of neighbours, sharing food, visiting the elderly, creating public spaces where nobody needs to buy anything, giving people time to care, allowing friendships to develop slowly and treating presence as something valuable rather than unproductive. The infrastructure of love is built in minutes, conversations, gestures and acts of attention. 

When we imagine the future, we tend to imagine what technology will allow us to do. Perhaps a more important question is what technology will allow us to stop doing, and what we will choose to do with the time we recover. If AI does our paperwork, who will we visit? If autonomous vehicles drive us, who will we meet on the journey? If machines educate our children, who will teach them how to care? If algorithms know our preferences better than our friends do, will we still make the effort to know one another?

The future will not be short of infrastructure. It may, however, be short of reasons to use it together. Perhaps the civilisation that comes after ours will judge progress differently. It may look back at our obsession with highways, buildings, bandwidth, productivity and growth and wonder why we spent so much effort making things faster while allowing relationships to become harder. It may find it strange that we measured national wealth but not the wealth of human connection, counted houses but not homes, calculated healthcare expenditure but ignored the unpaid care that kept millions alive, and celebrated technological connectivity while tolerating extraordinary levels of loneliness. And perhaps the great infrastructure revolution of the future will begin with a deceptively simple realisation that the purpose of infrastructure is not to connect roads, machines, markets or data, but to enable human beings to live meaningful lives together.

(The cover image is generated using AI)

Filed under Opinions Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Role of values and ethics in community practice

January 19, 2026 Leave a comment

Community practice sits at the intersection of social change, participatory development, and human wellbeing. It involves working with individuals, groups, and institutions to enhance quality of life, challenge structural inequalities, and strengthen collective agency. Yet, this transformative process is impossible without a strong foundation of values and ethical principles. Values shape the vision and intention behind community action, while ethics guide the methods and behaviours used to pursue that vision. The integrity of community practice, including its legitimacy, trustworthiness, and long-term impact, depends on how practitioners understand and embody these principles. The presentation on Values and Ethics emphasises core values such as service, social justice, dignity and worth of every person, human relationships, integrity, and competence, alongside ethical guidelines including respect, informed consent, confidentiality, and non-discrimination. These are essential elements of responsible and democratic engagement with communities.

Values represent deeply held beliefs about how the world should be and how people ought to behave. They are moral compasses that guide decisions, priorities, and relationships. Values reflect strong beliefs about desired conditions of life and preferred moral behaviour. In community practice, values shape not only personal conduct but also the philosophies of development interventions, determining whether they foster empowerment or dependency, solidarity or charity, rights or favours.

The value of Service embodies commitment to supporting individuals, families, and communities through concrete actions, volunteerism, and compassionate engagement. During the COVID-19 pandemic, undergraduate and high school student volunteers in India demonstrated extraordinary service through fundraising, relief distribution, care work, and digital support for vulnerable households. Their example illustrates that service is not passive goodwill but active participation in alleviating suffering and building resilience. In development studies, service aligns with Paulo Freire’s notion of praxis, which is reflection combined with action to transform reality.

Community practice is inherently political as it confronts power structures, resource inequities, and systemic barriers that perpetuate marginalization. Social justice means equality, human rights, diversity, and opportunities, ultimately contributing to a happier world. A social justice lens ensures that community work moves beyond charitable assistance to structural transformation. From a development studies perspective, the struggle for social justice requires practitioners to advocate for fair distribution of resources, break discriminatory norms, and amplify voices historically excluded from decision-making. Community practice, therefore, demands values aligned with the SDG 5, SDG 10, and SDG 16. 

Recognizing each individual’s inherent dignity and worth is central to ethical community practice. This aligns with human rights frameworks and Amartya Sen’s capabilities approach, which sees development as expanding freedoms and choices. When community practitioners honour dignity, they see people not just as beneficiaries but as partners, experts in their own lived experience. Respecting dignity involves listening without judgment, avoiding stereotypes, and making sure that interventions do not reduce agency.

Building strong relationships and networks for meaningful community development is very important. Trust is the currency of community practice, developed through transparency, empathy, and accountability. Sustainable change cannot be imposed; it emerges from collaborative relationships among stakeholders such as residents, civil society institutions, governments, and markets. Relational practice aligns with theories of social capital, which argue that cohesive communities with strong networks are better positioned to solve collective problems. When practitioners prioritise relationships, they enable shared ownership and long-term stewardship of change processes.

Integrity, which is non-negotiable and rooted in keeping promises, respecting boundaries, and never betraying trust, is essential for legitimacy in community work. Without integrity, community actors can reproduce harmful dynamics of exploitation or manipulation. Practitioners must therefore be consistent in values and actions, resist corruption, and maintain transparency in financial decisions, participation processes, and communication. Integrity also requires humility in recognizing limitations, acknowledging mistakes, and being accountable for consequences. In a context where communities may have experienced decades of unmet promises, integrity becomes a radical act of restoration.

Competence requires practitioners to continuously build knowledge, develop skills, engage in research, and translate learning into action. Competence includes interdisciplinary understanding of poverty, gender, climate resilience, social policy, participatory methodologies, and cultural sensitivity. Competence protects communities from poorly designed interventions that may cause unintended harm. Attending conferences, reading research, and grounding practice in evidence strengthens professionalism and promotes innovation. Competence also means knowing when to collaborate with subject-matter experts instead of assuming expertise.

Ethics provide guidelines to translate values into action. Ethical principles like commitment, respect, informed consent, privacy & confidentiality, non-discrimination, self-determination, social diversity, and boundaries in physical contact and communication are important. These principles prevent abuse of power, ensure fairness, and build trust. Respect and Informed Consent ensure that community members’ rights are upheld and that participation is voluntary and based on understanding. Informed consent is especially important when dealing with research, data collection, health interventions, or sensitive personal histories. Confidentiality and Privacy protect personal information and reinforce psychological safety. Violating confidentiality can cause social harm and erode trust permanently. Self-determination requires practitioners to facilitate agency rather than impose solutions. Communities must remain decision-makers in development processes, consistent with participatory development frameworks. Non-discrimination and respect for diversity demand active challenge to caste, gender, disability, sexuality, religion, and class barriers. A commitment to inclusion transforms communities into spaces of belonging. Ethical conduct concerning physical boundaries, language, and sexual harassment protects dignity and safety. Such ethics create a culture of accountability that strengthens collective values.

Values and ethics together shape the culture of development practice. They influence how decisions are made, how conflicts are resolved, and how change is pursued. Without ethical foundations, community work risks becoming transactional or extractive. Conversely, when values and ethics guide practice, communities become co-architects of development and not mere beneficiaries. Values and ethics also guide practitioners through complexity. Community practice involves tension, competing expectations, and uncertain environments. Ethical frameworks provide a compass and define clear boundaries, ensuring that actions remain aligned with justice and human dignity.

Values and ethics are not supplementary components of community practice. Values such as service, social justice, integrity, dignity, competence, and the importance of human relationships guide development practitioners to commit to empowerment rather than charity and partnership rather than control. Ethical principles like informed consent, confidentiality, respect, and non-discrimination protect the rights of communities and uphold trust. Together, they create moral, relational, and intellectual foundations necessary for transformative development processes. Ultimately, community practice grounded in strong values and ethics nurtures societies where human potential can flourish, justice is prioritized, and diversity is celebrated. When practitioners act with humility, integrity, and commitment, they not only support community change but also become participants in shaping a more equitable and compassionate world.

Read more

  • Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. Penguin.
  • International Federation of Social Workers (2018). Global Social Work Statement of Ethical Principles.
  • Jenkins, R., & Goetz, A. M. (1999). Accounts and accountability: Theoretical implications of the Right to Information movement in India. Third World Quarterly, 20(3).
  • Roy, B. (2010). Learning from Barefoot College. TED.
  • Sen, A. (1999). Development as Freedom. Oxford University Press.
Values and Ethics PresentationDownload

(The presentation is from a lecture I delivered in 2022, for graduate students of development practice.)

(The cover image is generated using AI)

Filed under Social Impact Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Navigating the Road to Sustainability for Nonprofits in India

September 11, 2024 1 Comment

Source: Idea taken from Foraker group model

Sustainability has become a buzzword across industries, and for nonprofits in India, it’s more than just a trend—it’s a necessity! Sustainability in the nonprofit sector is a critical issue that encompasses not only environmental stewardship but also financial stability, organizational resilience, and long-term impact. Nonprofits, by their nature, are dedicated to addressing social, economic, and environmental challenges, often with limited resources and high expectations. With India’s rapid economic shifts and evolving social landscape, understanding and overcoming these hurdles is essential for nonprofits striving to make a lasting difference.

Key Challenges Facing Nonprofits in India

1. Funding Instability:  One of the most significant challenges facing nonprofits is financial instability. Nonprofits rely heavily on donor contributions, government grants, and CSR grants, which can be unpredictable and subject to economic fluctuations. Furthermore, many donors prefer to fund specific projects rather than general operations, leaving nonprofits vulnerable to financial shortfalls. The global economy, changing donor priorities, and a lack of diversified income streams often impact an organization’s ability to plan and execute long-term projects. This gets further compounded by competition among nonprofits for limited resources.

Nonprofits must constantly innovate and demonstrate their impact to attract and retain donors. This requires significant investment in fundraising and partnership strategies, donor relations, and marketing, which are resource-intensive and divert attention from core mission activities, often resulting in chicken-egg situations.

2. Administrative and Operational Inefficiencies:  Many nonprofits in India struggle with limited administrative resources and inefficient operational practices. Limited resources lead to outdated technologies, inefficient processes, and a lack of professional expertise. Inefficiencies in management, compliance, accounting, and reporting undermine the effectiveness of programs and reduce transparency, negatively impacting stakeholders and donors’ trust. This is more challenging for smaller organizations with limited administrative capacity.

3. Regulatory and Compliance Maze: Managing the complex regulatory landscape in India is challenging for nonprofits. Compliance with legal requirements, such as the Foreign Contribution Regulation Act (FCRA) and the Goods and Services Tax (GST), requires careful attention to detail and significant administrative effort. Changes in regulations and stringent reporting requirements add to the administrative burden. Staying compliant while adapting to new regulations can strain organizational resources and divert attention from mission-critical activities.

4. Capacity Building and Skill Gaps: The nonprofit sector often faces challenges related to human resources. There is a growing need for skilled professionals who can handle strategic planning, fundraising, and program management, leading to organizational sustainability. The sector often faces challenges in attracting and retaining skilled professionals due to budget constraints and lower salaries compared to the private sector.

Capacity building requires investing in learning and development for employees. However, many organizations lack the resources to provide comprehensive training programs or to hire experienced professionals. This often limits their ability to effectively manage programs, drive strategic initiatives, and ensure organizational growth.

5. Measuring Impact: Measuring and presenting evidence-backed impact is essential for donor confidence and organizational effectiveness. Nonprofits need to develop robust monitoring and evaluation frameworks to assess the outcomes and effectiveness of their programs. However, many organizations struggle with setting up these systems due to limited resources and expertise.

 Strategies for Enhancing Sustainability

1. Diversifying Funding Sources: To address funding instability, nonprofits need to explore multiple revenue streams. This includes engaging in social entrepreneurship and blended finance opportunities, establishing partnerships with businesses, leveraging online crowdfunding platforms, and digital fundraising. Creating a diversified funding base helps in reducing dependency on a single source and enhances financial stability.

2. Leveraging and Embracing Technology: Technology offers significant opportunities for enhancing operational efficiency and reach. Digital tools can streamline administrative processes, improve data management, and facilitate better communication with stakeholders through online platforms and social media. Adopting technology also opens avenues for online fundraising and virtual program delivery such as webinars, workshops, and training.

3. Building Stronger Partnerships: Collaboration with other nonprofits, governmental agencies, and private sector organizations can amplify the impact of initiatives and improve sustainability. Strategic partnerships can provide access to additional resources, expertise, and networks. Strategic alliances can also lead to cost savings through shared services and joint initiatives. By working together, organizations can leverage each other’s strengths, reduce duplication of efforts, and achieve greater impact.

4. Investing in Human Capital: Prioritizing the development of human resources is crucial for organizational growth and sustainability. Nonprofits should invest in training and capacity-building programs for their staff and volunteers through training programs, workshops, and professional development opportunities. Creating a culture of continuous learning and career advancement opportunities can enhance program delivery, improve management practices, organizational resilience, and employee retention. Leadership development is particularly important for long-term sustainability. Cultivating strong leaders within the organization can drive strategic planning, innovation, and effective decision-making.

5. Enhancing Transparency and Accountability: Building trust with stakeholders through transparency and accountability is essential for long-term success. Nonprofits should adopt the best practices in financial management, regularly publish impact reports, and engage in open communication with donors and stakeholders. Transparency not only attracts more funding but also strengthens community support. Implementing robust internal controls and conducting regular audits can help maintain financial integrity and accountability. Additionally, engaging stakeholders in decision-making processes and soliciting feedback can enhance organizational credibility and responsiveness.

6. Adopting Sustainable Practices: Integrating sustainability into program design and organizational operations can drive long-term impact. Nonprofits should consider the environmental impact of their activities and seek to minimize their footprint. This might involve adopting green practices, such as reducing waste, conserving energy, and promoting eco-friendly initiatives. Sustainable practices also include ensuring the long-term viability of programs. This involves designing initiatives that can be sustained over time, building local capacity, and fostering community ownership. By promoting sustainability within programs, nonprofits can create a transformative impact.

The road to nonprofit sustainability is full of challenges, but with innovation, partnership, and a commitment to continuous improvement, nonprofits can navigate these challenges and continue to make a meaningful impact on society.  As the sector is continuously evolving, embracing sustainability will be key to ensuring that nonprofits can adapt to changing circumstances continue to remain steadfast in their mission, and drive positive social change for years to come.

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed are those of the author and do not purport to reflect the views or opinions of any organization, foundation, CSR, non-profit or others

Filed under Opinions, Social Impact Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Social Capital in India: Old wine new bottle

May 12, 2012 2 Comments

Photo source: http://entrepid.sg

India faced the problems of economic development and poverty eradication twice on a massive scale. Firstly, it was felt acutely just after independence and secondly, it is being felt still more acutely, today, when under the pressure of globalization, India has to turn to United States of America and western countries for its development. When Indiabecame independent from the British rule in 1947, Pt. Jawaharlal Nehru as the first Prime Minister of India, felt the need to develop an independent economic system. To strengthen independence and make it more meaningful for the common man, the issue was hotly debated. The American and western experts termed the debate on independent economic system as a futile exercise. They argued that as India was divided into so many castes, religions, languages and regions it could not create a large, well organised market system. They believed that Indians were people with spiritual leanings who cared more for the world here after. And therefore, it was believed that these Indian common men had little interest in savings or profit making. They even quoted Shankaracharya, in their support whose teachings said, ‘O fools, wealth can never give you satisfaction. So renounce all desires. Be wise and contented and happy with your lot.’

In this way the western masters did all they could to dissuade India from modern industrialisation. But JL Nehru and the subsequent PM Smt. Indira Gandhi never felt discouraged and made concerted efforts to develop an independent economy and achieved unprecedented success in this direction.

Surprisingly enough, these advisors have appeared again, this time in the form of institutional system like World Bank. They claim that lack of Social Capital is at the root of growing socio-economic disparity, corruption and rising crimes in the country. Therefore,India should desist from opposing international economic system (as witnessed inCancun) and make an all-out effort to create Social Capital. Robert Putnam, Francis Fukuyama and World Bank worked as Think Tank behind this campaign. Putnam was the chief exponent of the modern concept of Social Capital. He discussed this concept in detail in his famous book, ‘Making Democracy Work: Civic traditions in Modern Italy’ published in1993. In his opinion ‘Social Capital’ is closely associated with the kind of social organization which is based on mutual trust and accepted standards of social conduct. These elements work as networks that develop the work culture of the society that pave the way for combined social efforts for economic progress and prosperity. In other words, ‘they create a social affinity that helps people work together and thereby increase production’.

Francis Fukuyama underlined the importance of ‘Social Capital’ in his book ‘Trust and the Great depression’. He further emphasised its role in his pamphlet ‘Social Capital and Civil society’, which he wrote for International Monetary Fund. According to Fukuyama Social Capital is essential for modern economy to function efficiently. No liberal democracy can function without it nor can modern culture survive without it.

World Bank considers Social Capital as the lost link of development. The concept of Social Capital with its inherent implications is not entirely new for India. Right form the ancient times people were instructed to work together. It has been the basis of joint family, caste-system, society and religion. Lord Buddha preached, ‘Sangham Sharanam Gachhami’. Today it is said that ‘strength lies in unity’ (‘Sanghe Shakti Kalyuge’ in modern times). The question is if we already know the importance of Social Capital, it means that there is nothing new in the concept. It is only old wine in a new bottle. Then what is the justification for launching such a great campaign again!

The reason is not far to seek. Western countries and their experts and their mouthpieces in the form of Organizations viz., International Monetary Fund and the world bank, nourished by them do not want that developing nations should see their economic backwardness and mismanagement in their historical perspective and take positive steps to redress them. Nor do they want that these nations should launch a crusade against the present unjust International economic system. These western powers want that the developing countries should follow their dictates, in every area of economic development, as modern day economic colonies. So, they try to convince the people of the developing Countries that they alone are responsible for their present miseries. If they stop fighting among themselves and create an atmosphere of mutual co-operation and trust they will progress with rapid speed.

It is useless to blame Capitalism and Imperialism. If land-lords and farm-workers, Capitalists and imperialists, forwards and backwards, developed and developing nations shun the path of confrontation and live amicably by creating mutual trust, the problems of poverty, exploitation and backwardness will be solved in due course. The spokesmen of the present concept of Social Capital strongly believe that in a country like India, the root and source of Social Capital still exist, but they can be revived not by Government machinery but by non governmental organizations. As the present political system has become utterly corrupt, these organizations should keep above politics while discharging their duties.

They are opposed even to Gram Panchayat and decentralisation because they are fully under the control of the Government. In this way, they want to keep all developmental work beyond the jurisdiction of the government. The supporters of Social Capital are in the favour of making all development work non-political. They have faith only in non-governmental organizations. But as we all know that these NGOs are not above controversy. Most of them are interested only in earning money by fair or foul means. They receive money from many donor agencies, which are not above suspicion themselves. The data collected by NGOs may be used by the foreign agencies against the government, which may go against our national interests. In short, these so called NGOs are not free from corruption. More over, the Social Capital generated by NGOs is not equally used for the benefit of every section of the society.

Today India needs all-round social, economic, political and cultural changes to create congenial conditions for development. This is a tremendous task which can be accomplished by political parties alone by using people’s power. This is because; the party in power is answerable to the people and the parliament. The NGOs which create Social Capital do not own any such responsibility. In India, NGOs like Ram Krishna Mission, Bharat Sevashrana, etc have been functioning for decades. They have done commendable work, but have never claimed that they can bring about comprehensive economic and political development. Today NGOs which are known for their integrity can not do more than providing temporary relief. However, permanent changes can be brought with a proactive partnership between the government and the civil societies. Therefore, it is wrong and even dangerous to think of development without government and political power.

In the end attention should also be drawn to the fact that some people want to encourage casteist, regional and communal organizations in the name of creating and developing Social Capital. It is a signal of danger which should be taken note of. If Brahmins form their organization to help their kinsmen and backward and schedule castes work on the same lines, it will aggravate only sectarian feelings. India, which is already divided on sectarian lines will break into fragments if programs of Social Capital are implemented with such narrow minded aims and ambitions.

Filed under Econ Dev Tagged with , , , , , , , , ,

Social Trading Platform India

March 12, 2012 10 Comments

The idea is to provide a capital market for social good. This can bring about social consciousness to the global financial markets. It holds the potential to increase access to capital for enterprises with a social mission. On a bigger scale, it will help social enterprises further develop the professionalism of their operations and create a whole ecosystem around it to support social enterprises. This will become India’s first social trading platform, providing a trading platform and an efficient capital raising mechanism for Indian Social Enterprises (SEs), including both for-profit and not-for-profit entities with a social mission. The Platform will connect these SEs with impact investors seeking to achieve both a social return and an economic return on their investment while providing capital to fund innovative social businesses. This platform will also enable philanthropic donations.

Such an exchange will bring all the relevant players in the ecosystem together, speaking the same language and assisting one another in creating greater social good. It will encourage the governments, civil societies, academics, investment banks, research companies, auditing bodies and social enterprises to agree on a framework to measure social value, common terminology, transparency, and social and financial goals.

Social enterprises seeking to list shares or bonds on the exchange will go through proper social and financial auditing (third party validation) and report regularly to investors on both their social and financial results. Investors purchasing shares and bonds on the exchange will be attracted by the transparent disclosure of social returns and will evaluate companies based on both their social and financial returns. They will understand that a social enterprise may not maximize its earnings due to the cost associated with fulfilling its social mission. And they will be willing to accept a limited financial return in order to support this mission. Of course, given the current dismal state of the market for profit-maximizing businesses, any economic return topped with a social return may feel like a windfall to an investor.

The Platform will push the envelope on the existing socially responsible investing, bring forward social enterprises and social purposes companies (in addition to microfinance) in energy, water/sanitation, media, fair-trade, health, education, and cottage industry and bring to the attention of these investors a whole new set of enterprises which would not have been noticed otherwise.

Such a platform/exchange cannot be created overnight. It will take years before The Exchange is a robust trading platform. However, with the proper assistance and support from other members of the social investing ecosystem, it can become the cornerstone of a potentially very large social enterprise economy.

Note: I am working on its operational model, and will post it once am done.

Filed under Ideas Tagged with , , , , , , , , ,