Tuesday, May 22, 2012
INSEAD Social Entrepreneurship: INSEAD Social Entrepreneurship Conference 2012
Again it proved to be a great and stimulating conference! More soon!
Tuesday, June 21, 2011
The Media and Disasters
-by Jurgita Balaisyte, Maria Besiou and Luk N. Van Wassenhove, 6 June 2011-
Introduction
2010 witnessed 385 natural disasters that killed more than 297,000 people worldwide and affected over 217 million others. Some disasters received more media attention than others. Although more than five times more people were affected by China’s floods than by the earthquake in Haiti and the floods in Pakistan combined, China’s floods received far less media attention than either Pakistan or Haiti. In this commentary we discuss the media’s impact on the donations for the affected populations.
Mediatisation
Mediatisation is the process by which political activity and awareness raising has become more focused on media presentation. In this article we use this term to refer to major natural disasters that receive more media attention than others.
The Brookings Institution’s review on the natural disasters of 2010 supports that China’s floods received less media attention than the Pakistan’s floods. The web-portal Reliefweb, administered by the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), posted only 243 entries on the Chinese floods in comparison with 2500 entries on the flooding in Pakistan.
Another disaster that was well mediatised was the Tohoku disaster in Japan. Despite the scale of the devastating 2011 Tohoku earthquake and tsunami disaster, it caused only 1/10 of Haiti’s casualties. This disaster also received broader media coverage, followed by higher fundraising, than China’s floods.
The examples above imply that media attention does not necessarily depend on the number of casualties and the size of the disaster. This raises the question which disasters are well covered by media and why. Read the rest of this article...
Introduction
2010 witnessed 385 natural disasters that killed more than 297,000 people worldwide and affected over 217 million others. Some disasters received more media attention than others. Although more than five times more people were affected by China’s floods than by the earthquake in Haiti and the floods in Pakistan combined, China’s floods received far less media attention than either Pakistan or Haiti. In this commentary we discuss the media’s impact on the donations for the affected populations.
Mediatisation
Mediatisation is the process by which political activity and awareness raising has become more focused on media presentation. In this article we use this term to refer to major natural disasters that receive more media attention than others.
The Brookings Institution’s review on the natural disasters of 2010 supports that China’s floods received less media attention than the Pakistan’s floods. The web-portal Reliefweb, administered by the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), posted only 243 entries on the Chinese floods in comparison with 2500 entries on the flooding in Pakistan.
Another disaster that was well mediatised was the Tohoku disaster in Japan. Despite the scale of the devastating 2011 Tohoku earthquake and tsunami disaster, it caused only 1/10 of Haiti’s casualties. This disaster also received broader media coverage, followed by higher fundraising, than China’s floods.
The examples above imply that media attention does not necessarily depend on the number of casualties and the size of the disaster. This raises the question which disasters are well covered by media and why. Read the rest of this article...
Friday, May 20, 2011
What is the Link Between Economic Development and Humanitarian Response?
-by Jurgita Balaisyte and Luk N. Van Wassenhove, 10 May 2011-
May 11th marked the second month of the relief effort in response to the earthquake, tsunami and nuclear crisis in Japan. As of May 5th, the number of deaths was 14,817, the number of injured was 5,279, and the number of missing is 10,171 (according to the National Police Agency). The 2011 Tohoku earthquake and tsunami disaster showed that even a prosperous and a well prepared country like Japan can be challenged by complex disasters. When disaster occurs in a highly populated area casualties are almost unavoidable. However, preparedness can minimise casualties and losses. Prepared countries with governments that exercise strong leadership and internal resources usually are more coherent in disaster response.
Disaster life cycle includes four stages: mitigation, preparedness, response and rehabilitation. Mitigation addresses the proactive social component of emergencies. This includes laws and mechanisms that reduce the vulnerability of the population and increase resilience. Mitigation leads to better preparedness, putting in place the response mechanisms to counter factors that society has not been able to mitigate (Tomasini and Van Wassenhove, 2009). In addition, governance and socio-economic conditions often have a great impact on the disaster preparedness and response.
Therefore, we look at how preparedness, governance, and socioeconomic conditions can help individuals and countries to reduce the resulting deaths, injuries, costs, and disruption. In this commentary we focus only on natural disasters such as earthquakes and tsunami. We compare the disaster Japan to other recent disasters of similar magnitude such as the 2010 Chile and Haiti earthquakes. We suggest that both Chile and Haiti are good examples for comparison because they represent two extreme poles in terms of preparedness, governance and socioeconomic environment. Chile is among the most prosperous countries in Latin America whereas Haiti is one of the poorest nations in the region. Below, Table 1 depicts the differences between the three disasters in terms of magnitude of the disaster on the Richter scale, the number of casualties and GDP per capita.
Table 1: Disaster Characteristics and Socio-Economic Factors
First, we explore preparedness in the light of the earthquake and tsunami. Second, we examine the governance impact on the relief efforts. Third, we look at how socioeconomic conditions and citizens can affect response. Read the rest of this article... Please share your opinion and comments here regarding Japan's disaster preparedness and contingency plans, measures towards a nuclear treat, your experience in Japan or with other disasters.
May 11th marked the second month of the relief effort in response to the earthquake, tsunami and nuclear crisis in Japan. As of May 5th, the number of deaths was 14,817, the number of injured was 5,279, and the number of missing is 10,171 (according to the National Police Agency). The 2011 Tohoku earthquake and tsunami disaster showed that even a prosperous and a well prepared country like Japan can be challenged by complex disasters. When disaster occurs in a highly populated area casualties are almost unavoidable. However, preparedness can minimise casualties and losses. Prepared countries with governments that exercise strong leadership and internal resources usually are more coherent in disaster response.Disaster life cycle includes four stages: mitigation, preparedness, response and rehabilitation. Mitigation addresses the proactive social component of emergencies. This includes laws and mechanisms that reduce the vulnerability of the population and increase resilience. Mitigation leads to better preparedness, putting in place the response mechanisms to counter factors that society has not been able to mitigate (Tomasini and Van Wassenhove, 2009). In addition, governance and socio-economic conditions often have a great impact on the disaster preparedness and response.
Therefore, we look at how preparedness, governance, and socioeconomic conditions can help individuals and countries to reduce the resulting deaths, injuries, costs, and disruption. In this commentary we focus only on natural disasters such as earthquakes and tsunami. We compare the disaster Japan to other recent disasters of similar magnitude such as the 2010 Chile and Haiti earthquakes. We suggest that both Chile and Haiti are good examples for comparison because they represent two extreme poles in terms of preparedness, governance and socioeconomic environment. Chile is among the most prosperous countries in Latin America whereas Haiti is one of the poorest nations in the region. Below, Table 1 depicts the differences between the three disasters in terms of magnitude of the disaster on the Richter scale, the number of casualties and GDP per capita.
Table 1: Disaster Characteristics and Socio-Economic Factors
Disaster | Magnitude | Casualties | GDP PPP (2009) |
Japan 2011 | 9.0 | 13,858 | $33,100 |
Chile 2010 | 8.8 | 562 | $14,900 |
Haiti 2010 | 7.0 | 230,000 | $1,200 |
First, we explore preparedness in the light of the earthquake and tsunami. Second, we examine the governance impact on the relief efforts. Third, we look at how socioeconomic conditions and citizens can affect response. Read the rest of this article... Please share your opinion and comments here regarding Japan's disaster preparedness and contingency plans, measures towards a nuclear treat, your experience in Japan or with other disasters.
Thursday, March 24, 2011
The Ongoing Response to the Earthquake and Tsunami in Japan
-by Jurgita Balaisyte, Alfonso J. Pedraza Martinez, Orla Stapleton, Luk N. Van Wassenhove, 14 March 2011-
The earthquake, measuring 9.0 on the Richter scale, which took place in Japan on Friday 11th March was the world’s fifth largest earthquake since 1900 and was 700 times more powerful than the one that struck Haiti last year. However, despite the devastation playing out on our television screens, the damage and losses are relatively low when we consider the magnitude of the disaster. In Tokyo for example, the damage from the earthquake was very limited and the reaction of the people on the streets illustrated the level of preparedness of the country for this type of disaster.
However, the situation has become much more complex since the initial disaster. The earthquake unleashed a monstrous tsunami, up to 10 metres in some areas, that surged water in some areas 10 kilometres inland, causing extensive damage and resulting in numerous casualties. In addition, there is a high risk of meltdown in one of the countries nuclear power plants and an oil refinery has been set alight. What began as a sudden onset natural disaster has degenerated into a massive humanitarian crisis. Although initially foreign assistance was not deemed necessary, due to the complexity of situation, the Prime Minister of Japan has called for international assistance to deal with emergency response activities while continuing the massive search and rescue operation. Read the rest of this article...
Please share your opinion and comments regarding Japan's disaster preparedness and contingency plans, measures towards a nuclear treat, your experience in Japan or with other disasters.
The earthquake, measuring 9.0 on the Richter scale, which took place in Japan on Friday 11th March was the world’s fifth largest earthquake since 1900 and was 700 times more powerful than the one that struck Haiti last year. However, despite the devastation playing out on our television screens, the damage and losses are relatively low when we consider the magnitude of the disaster. In Tokyo for example, the damage from the earthquake was very limited and the reaction of the people on the streets illustrated the level of preparedness of the country for this type of disaster.
However, the situation has become much more complex since the initial disaster. The earthquake unleashed a monstrous tsunami, up to 10 metres in some areas, that surged water in some areas 10 kilometres inland, causing extensive damage and resulting in numerous casualties. In addition, there is a high risk of meltdown in one of the countries nuclear power plants and an oil refinery has been set alight. What began as a sudden onset natural disaster has degenerated into a massive humanitarian crisis. Although initially foreign assistance was not deemed necessary, due to the complexity of situation, the Prime Minister of Japan has called for international assistance to deal with emergency response activities while continuing the massive search and rescue operation. Read the rest of this article...
Please share your opinion and comments regarding Japan's disaster preparedness and contingency plans, measures towards a nuclear treat, your experience in Japan or with other disasters.
Wednesday, September 1, 2010
Social Innovation Revisited
-by Professor Luk N. Van Wassenhove, 23 August 2010-
About four years ago, our new dean asked me to set up a research centre bringing together all existing initiatives related to the role of business in society. The man had a clear vision: sustainable enterprise would become an important trend in the years ahead.
In response to the dean’s request, I set about amalgamating a number of more or less successful initiatives: our Health Management Initiative, the Sustainability Group (energy, environment, sustainable mobility, etc.), the Social Entrepreneurship Initiative, the Corporate Social Responsibility and Ethics Group, as well as my own Humanitarian Research Group. To this was added a new Africa Initiative, which aimed to devote more attention to the needs of the Dark Continent. While being quite a mixture of disparate themes and objectives, it was also a golden opportunity to move beyond the stereotyped pigeonholing of such initiatives and to look more comprehensively at complex, multidisciplinary problems with a group of highly motivated colleagues. Read the rest of this article...
About four years ago, our new dean asked me to set up a research centre bringing together all existing initiatives related to the role of business in society. The man had a clear vision: sustainable enterprise would become an important trend in the years ahead.
In response to the dean’s request, I set about amalgamating a number of more or less successful initiatives: our Health Management Initiative, the Sustainability Group (energy, environment, sustainable mobility, etc.), the Social Entrepreneurship Initiative, the Corporate Social Responsibility and Ethics Group, as well as my own Humanitarian Research Group. To this was added a new Africa Initiative, which aimed to devote more attention to the needs of the Dark Continent. While being quite a mixture of disparate themes and objectives, it was also a golden opportunity to move beyond the stereotyped pigeonholing of such initiatives and to look more comprehensively at complex, multidisciplinary problems with a group of highly motivated colleagues. Read the rest of this article...
Tuesday, August 17, 2010
We’d Better Change Our Act!
The humanitarian context is rapidly changing but the humanitarian ecosystem is plagued by what we call the knowledge-doing gap. We see it coming but apparently we are incapable to act. It just seems too hard to change our ways.
Who Do We Think We’re Fooling?
Everyone agrees the humanitarian case load is increasing rapidly while funds are drying up. A child can tell that this means we are driving ourselves into a wall. Our world is critically inter- dependent and highly non-linear, but we keep acting as if action-outcome links are simple and linear. We believe we shall be able to fix things when they arise. Well, we won’t. We shall increasingly be victims of complex feed-forward and feedback loops in dynamic systems, i.e. we shall always run behind the facts if we do not accept this simple reality and start acting accordingly. For instance, food prices will again increase dramatically because of the drought in Europe. This will put even more people in a life-threatening situation in completely different parts of the world.
These waves of crises will persist. They will even intensify and their effects will be more abrupt and unexpected. We need a dynamic and integrated approach to risk and scenario analysis in order to anticipate major disequilibria and to adequately prepare for timely response.
Who Do We Think We’re Fooling?
Everyone agrees the humanitarian case load is increasing rapidly while funds are drying up. A child can tell that this means we are driving ourselves into a wall. Our world is critically inter- dependent and highly non-linear, but we keep acting as if action-outcome links are simple and linear. We believe we shall be able to fix things when they arise. Well, we won’t. We shall increasingly be victims of complex feed-forward and feedback loops in dynamic systems, i.e. we shall always run behind the facts if we do not accept this simple reality and start acting accordingly. For instance, food prices will again increase dramatically because of the drought in Europe. This will put even more people in a life-threatening situation in completely different parts of the world.
These waves of crises will persist. They will even intensify and their effects will be more abrupt and unexpected. We need a dynamic and integrated approach to risk and scenario analysis in order to anticipate major disequilibria and to adequately prepare for timely response.
To read the rest of the article, please go to: http://www.insead.edu/facultyresearch/centres/isic/humanitarian/BetterChangeOurAct.cfm
To go to the Humanitarian Research Group website, please click here: http://www.insead.edu/facultyresearch/centres/isic/humanitarian
Let's Hear Those Ideas
In America and Britain governments hope that a partnership with “social entrepreneurs” can solve some of society’s most intractable problems
---- The Economist, 12 August 2010 ----
---- The Economist, 12 August 2010 ----
POLICYMAKERS on both sides of the Atlantic are keen on a new approach to alleviating society’s troubles. On July 22nd Barack Obama’s administration listed the first 11 investments by its new Social Innovation Fund (SIF). About $50m of public money, more than matched by $74m from philanthropic foundations, will be given to some of America’s most successful non-profit organisations, in order to expand their work in health care, in creating jobs and in supporting young people.
Although the SIF accounts for a tiny fraction of the federal budget, the fund embodies anapproach that the administration plans to spread throughout government. The fund is one of several efforts to promote new partnerships of government, private capital, social entrepreneurs and the public, pushed by the White House’s Office of Social Innovation and Civic Participation (OSICP), which Mr Obama created soon after taking office. These initiatives include another fund, i3 (for “investing in innovation”), in the Department of Education and cash prizes for novel answers to social problems.
Three days earlier David Cameron, Britain’s prime minister, gave a speech in Liverpool outlining his vision of a “Big Society”. At its heart, he sees a similar partnership to Mr Obama’s. A Big Society Bank will “help finance social enterprises, charities and voluntary groups through intermediaries”, which sounds very like the task of the SIF. The government, said Mr Cameron, urgently needs to “open up public services to new providers like charities, social enterprises and private companies so we get more innovation, diversity and responsiveness to public need” and to “create communities with oomph”.
A New Name for Brains and Money
“Social innovation” is the increasingly common shorthand for this approach to public-privatepartnerships. It differs from the fashion in the past couple of decades for contracting out the delivery of public services to businesses and non-profit groups in order to cut costs, in that it aims to do more than save a few dollars or pounds—although that is part of its attraction. The idea is to transform the way public services are provided, by tapping the ingenuity of people in the private sector, especially social entrepreneurs.
Although the SIF accounts for a tiny fraction of the federal budget, the fund embodies anapproach that the administration plans to spread throughout government. The fund is one of several efforts to promote new partnerships of government, private capital, social entrepreneurs and the public, pushed by the White House’s Office of Social Innovation and Civic Participation (OSICP), which Mr Obama created soon after taking office. These initiatives include another fund, i3 (for “investing in innovation”), in the Department of Education and cash prizes for novel answers to social problems.
Three days earlier David Cameron, Britain’s prime minister, gave a speech in Liverpool outlining his vision of a “Big Society”. At its heart, he sees a similar partnership to Mr Obama’s. A Big Society Bank will “help finance social enterprises, charities and voluntary groups through intermediaries”, which sounds very like the task of the SIF. The government, said Mr Cameron, urgently needs to “open up public services to new providers like charities, social enterprises and private companies so we get more innovation, diversity and responsiveness to public need” and to “create communities with oomph”.
A New Name for Brains and Money
“Social innovation” is the increasingly common shorthand for this approach to public-privatepartnerships. It differs from the fashion in the past couple of decades for contracting out the delivery of public services to businesses and non-profit groups in order to cut costs, in that it aims to do more than save a few dollars or pounds—although that is part of its attraction. The idea is to transform the way public services are provided, by tapping the ingenuity of people in the private sector, especially social entrepreneurs.
A social entrepreneur is, in essence, someone who develops an innovative answer to a social problem (for instance, a business model for helping to tackle poverty). A decade ago the term was scarcely heard; today everyone from London to Lagos wants to be one. Social-entrepreneurship conferences are invariably the best attended events for students at leading business schools.
To read the rest of this article, please go to: http://www.economist.com/node/16789766?story_id=16789766
To read the rest of this article, please go to: http://www.economist.com/node/16789766?story_id=16789766
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
