Syndicate content

Add new comment

Submitted by Alejo Lopez on
Edith, you raise an excellent point. Having worked both in development and also prowled the Silicon Valley as an [successful-to-be] entrepreneur, I believe that both the nature of the VC/entrepreneur partnership as well as the clear ownership of success and failure is what makes failure itself almost irrelevant. Failure it's awful and costly hard but it's the open door to a better business plan or a better venture. In development however, ownership is not so clear and the partnership between donors and local organizations is far from being strong in most cases. More importantly, development projects are mostly driven by bureaucrats and politicians. Entrepreneurs are mainly recipients of donor money and not an integral part of the planning process, so their ownership is limited. When failure happens, people (bank and NGO employees) do their best to protect their jobs and don't feel encouraged to tell the full story. I don't think it's their fault, it's the system. I think that if entrepreneurs are engaged in the early planning process (like it happens in a commercial venture) and investors partner with them, a similar approach to success and failure would emerge. Not sure if this is attainable at all in development as we know it.