Got a dynamite human development solution?
Charge people for it. Just try. Even a little.
Why?
1) The interaction brings a more balanced relationship. More equal. It requires that two people participate in the transaction, and it cannot be imposed.
2) People have dignity and pride in the fact that they’ve found a solution and invested in it themselves. They’ve invested in themselves.
3) People will tell you, via their purchases, whether your solution is wanted. It’s easy to give crap away in Africa. It’s harder to create something that genuinely fits within the culture and responds to people’s wants (not needs).
4) More immediate than that, more people will tell you directly how they feel about their solution because they feel the right. They’ve invested in it themselves. They expect you to hold up your end of the bargain. With an open mind, this can only create better solutions.
5) Because people have invested, both financially and emotionally, they will tend to care for the solution longer, fixing it when it breaks and improving it where they can.
6) Because (some) costs can be recovered, the per-person cost can be lower, allowing you to reach more people.
7) If others see a market developing, some will jump in with their own version. From an impact perspective, this is generally good: you’ve begun to create a self-sustaining, product-delivering industry.
8 ) There’s less chance for you, as a subsidized entrant, to upset the existing market and destroy local business.
9) We begin to see people as customers, users and adopters. As people. No longer, presumptuously and condescendingly, as beneficiaries of our help.
I realize that this doesn’t work in all situations. I realize it can’t always be done at full cost. But much more often than people think, products and other solutions can be charged for, if they are good. Do you want to actually respond to a perceived need, instead of just going through the motions? Instead of raising your ego by ‘helping thousands of beneficiaries’ with your solution? Yeah? Then try charging for it. You’ll learn quickly whether it’s actually a good one and with an open mind, the many ways it can improve and help people even more.
B
Check out more: Featured Posts - Africa - Ethiopia - Senegal - Development - Economy
![[Post to Twitter]](http://www.cashewman.com/wp-content/plugins/tweet-this/icons/tt-twitter-micro3.png){kind=icon}
![[Post to Delicious]](http://www.cashewman.com/wp-content/plugins/tweet-this/icons/tt-delicious-micro3.png){kind=icon}
![[Post to Digg]](http://www.cashewman.com/wp-content/plugins/tweet-this/icons/tt-digg-micro3.png){kind=icon}
![[Post to StumbleUpon]](http://www.cashewman.com/wp-content/plugins/tweet-this/icons/tt-su-micro3.png){kind=icon}
{ 3 trackbacks }
{ 8 comments… read them below or add one }
Excellent points. Charging people means that they’ve decided to take part in whatever you’re offering, and value it enough to spend their hard-earned money on it. Love the accountability it puts on providers too.
[Reply]
Increased accountability, for sure (although certainly doesn’t guarantee complete…). I was trying to work that in, but it didn’t make it. Should have.
B
[Reply]
Do you have some examples, B, of products Practica has helped with that were shot down (or improved upon) by buyers?
-t
[Reply]
Brendan Reply:
August 6th, 2009 at 8:17 am
Haven’t forgotten Tess, just trying to find a second!
B
[Reply]
Brendan
This is a great post on many levels. It follows a sustainable model and works towards context and relevance. Attitudes towards Africa as a continent are changing and with it, development models. It is slow but it is happening. This post and its philosophy are right there, at the front of how attitudes need to change. As you say, it is not a universal blueprint, but it is the way we should be thinking. Thanks for the rush of energy and hope this post has provided.
[Reply]
Brendan Reply:
August 6th, 2009 at 8:37 pm
Wow, Alasdair and Kip, I appreciate the kind words. Alisdair, I agree. It doesn’t always work. But it can happen much more often than conventional development thinking allows. I suspect that, although slow, the trends are good. People are now able to talk about ’self help’ (i.e. people investing in themselves) within community water provision circles without getting tossed out of the room. It’s happening, slowly.
Cheers,
B
[Reply]
Great stuff! Handouts destroy markets & innovation. Surfed in here via white african’s tweet feed.
[Reply]
By the way, the shot above is from work with EnterpriseWorks in Senegal. Their approach epitomizes the thoughts in this post - http://www.enterpriseworks.org.
B
[Reply]
I would take it a step further and argue that you should, in cases where possible, charge the market value for the good, not a subsidized amount.
Here is an example of how a subsidized product destroyed the market for water filters in the area where we work in Cambodia:
http://lessonsilearned.org/2009/07/giving-things-away-can-cause-more-harm-than-good-voluntourism-traveler-philanthropy-gone-wrong/
“But what about the really poor people who can’t afford to pay the market value?” some ask.
1) Even in the poorest areas there are wealth discrepancies (even though from a distant overview those changes are slight). In Cambodia at least, when “the poorest of the poor” are given something directly from the outside world (NGOs, corporations, etc), the “slightly less poor” often no longer want that thing. It has a stigma, people don’t necessarily trust that those people coming into their village to “help” are indeed giving quality products, etc. By selling the product to those who can afford it, it creates a demand for the product. The “richer” people have it, so those with less start to put value on it and may start to save for it.
2) “But the poorest of the poor need it NOW! We can’t wait until the market has been flooded, the price comes down, and the poorest of the poor have saved up to buy it!” OK, OK, valid point! But that doesn’t mean WE need to resort to giving things away nor subsidizing the product. I speak from a Cambodia perspective, but perhaps some of these lessons and patterns can apply to other areas. In Cambodia, on the village level, leadership and local community groups know who the “poorest of the poor” are, and are used to coming together to support those people at different times. THEY could subsidize it for those people, choose to have a common good shared among the few who can not afford it (depending on the product and maintenance needs which might demand “ownership”), etc. This IS different than the outside group subsidizing the product, as the local community recognizes their part in this, and the product still retains its true value.
3) Make a re-payment plan. I have seen a great model for this here in Cambodia is at rdic.org. They sell rope pumps to families, sometimes a group of families who have come together to buy the pump. At a few dollars per month over a monthly two year repayment period, each family can afford to purchase the pump. In addition, this allows the RDIC team to visit monthly and check that maintenance is being done well and that other factors leading to water-born illnesses are addressed. During one payment pick up they might talk about hand washing, another using toilets, checking on the families in-home water filter’s proper use, etc. When I last checked, RDIC had 100% repayment and they are indeed targeting the “poorest of the poor” in the areas where they work.
Rather than giving things away to “the poor”, or subsidizing, we can create markets and provide education along the way, if we invest our time, not just our money. By going through local power channels we can continue to support local community responsibility. By investing time (with human time being very affordable in the areas where we work) in collecting on a repayment plan, we can build a sense of ownership which is not gained when we get something for free.
Thanks for this post and the chance to reflect on this!
[Reply]
Isn’t there also something about the sustainability of a project? If there is an economic reason for something to continue (ie people need and value the service), it is more likely to survive than a project which requires outside donations. At least in my experience but YMMV.
[Reply]
Brendan Reply:
May 9th, 2010 at 9:48 pm
joe,
Without question. That was the initial draw for me, back when I worked with Enterpriseworks: if there’s benefit (often financial, not always) for everyone in the chain, the activity is more likely to continue. If I missed that, it’s a glaring omission!
Thanks,
B
[Reply]