My summary of ydays discussion. Posting here
Went for a discussion yesterday on what the Global Entrepreneurship Summit (GES) meant for Kenya. On one hand people who attended it thought 1) It helped entrepreneurs form connections with other entrepreneurs, VC firms, role models. I must add here, that most of the delegates were from developing countries 2) The panels and discussions were Africa focused, there were sessions on agriculture etc., that were extremely helpful.
Obama and Kenyatta convened the Summit. Kenya succumbed to a bad bout of Obamamania. Because of this the media did not focus on the Summit- and the panels etc, but chose to provide the public with minute details of Obama's Airforce 1. Thus not many people know what happened at the Summit. There was thus a claim that the Summit did not benefit the ordinary person.
This was followed up by the claim that people who were selected to attend the Summit had a previous connection with the US Embassy. This was not true in my case- however I do realize that credentials such as 'Rhodes Scholar' tends to open up doors. However, given that I met small scale farmers from Sudan, Tunisia- people who couldn't possibly have such connections, I reject this argument.
The discussion then went down the following path which I thought was extremely interesting. It went as follows. The US, and surrogates of the US such as the World Bank, IMF, have provided Africa with loans, while turning the screws on African countries, forcing them to privatize- this has had woeful consequences- such as lack of public transport etc. It was argued that GES was just another insidious way for the US to peddle its mandate of 'capitalism' on poor countries. It was said that GES created the perception among the public that business had to circumvent and provide for the public, what the government would not do. This is harmful.
Now, I have a problem with this. Everything the white man does today can be construed in this light (and it usually is true). However, is this really the perception of people on the ground? Or are we saying it is, in order for it to fit the above theory. I admit, I'm biased because I attended the Summit and found it to be helpful. The narrative during the Summit was very clearly that governments need to step up. However, thanks to the poor media coverage, this obviously did not go through.
A second point raised during the debate was that Obama pledged 1billion USD for 'youth and women'. However, studies have shown that for ever $ given in foreign aid to Kenya, Kenya loses $10 in tax evasion by multinational corporations who are signed on. A third point raised, was that the GES would lead to brain drain, as entrepreneurs would be enticed to go abroad to the US to become big. Personally, I dont think point 3) is a strong point.
Now, does this mean that 1) It would be better if the money hadn't been given? 2) Kenya needs to negotiate the terms of such grants, but does Kenya have the clout to negotiate these terms given the unequal relationship with the US? I am unclear.
So has the GES created more harm than good? Has it furthered the 'selfish' ambition of a few entrepreneurs at the expense of an entire nation? I leave you to draw your conclusion
Went for a discussion yesterday on what the Global Entrepreneurship Summit (GES) meant for Kenya. On one hand people who attended it thought 1) It helped entrepreneurs form connections with other entrepreneurs, VC firms, role models. I must add here, that most of the delegates were from developing countries 2) The panels and discussions were Africa focused, there were sessions on agriculture etc., that were extremely helpful.
Obama and Kenyatta convened the Summit. Kenya succumbed to a bad bout of Obamamania. Because of this the media did not focus on the Summit- and the panels etc, but chose to provide the public with minute details of Obama's Airforce 1. Thus not many people know what happened at the Summit. There was thus a claim that the Summit did not benefit the ordinary person.
This was followed up by the claim that people who were selected to attend the Summit had a previous connection with the US Embassy. This was not true in my case- however I do realize that credentials such as 'Rhodes Scholar' tends to open up doors. However, given that I met small scale farmers from Sudan, Tunisia- people who couldn't possibly have such connections, I reject this argument.
The discussion then went down the following path which I thought was extremely interesting. It went as follows. The US, and surrogates of the US such as the World Bank, IMF, have provided Africa with loans, while turning the screws on African countries, forcing them to privatize- this has had woeful consequences- such as lack of public transport etc. It was argued that GES was just another insidious way for the US to peddle its mandate of 'capitalism' on poor countries. It was said that GES created the perception among the public that business had to circumvent and provide for the public, what the government would not do. This is harmful.
Now, I have a problem with this. Everything the white man does today can be construed in this light (and it usually is true). However, is this really the perception of people on the ground? Or are we saying it is, in order for it to fit the above theory. I admit, I'm biased because I attended the Summit and found it to be helpful. The narrative during the Summit was very clearly that governments need to step up. However, thanks to the poor media coverage, this obviously did not go through.
A second point raised during the debate was that Obama pledged 1billion USD for 'youth and women'. However, studies have shown that for ever $ given in foreign aid to Kenya, Kenya loses $10 in tax evasion by multinational corporations who are signed on. A third point raised, was that the GES would lead to brain drain, as entrepreneurs would be enticed to go abroad to the US to become big. Personally, I dont think point 3) is a strong point.
Now, does this mean that 1) It would be better if the money hadn't been given? 2) Kenya needs to negotiate the terms of such grants, but does Kenya have the clout to negotiate these terms given the unequal relationship with the US? I am unclear.
So has the GES created more harm than good? Has it furthered the 'selfish' ambition of a few entrepreneurs at the expense of an entire nation? I leave you to draw your conclusion
No comments:
Post a Comment