Cultural Entrepreneurship

Lisa Witter
Partner and Chief Change Officer, Fenton

What are the differences between social entrepreneurship and cultural entrepreneurship? Is it worthwhile to have a separate classification for each?

We (Courtney Martin and myself) began exploring these questions in this recent Stanford Social Innovation Review piece. An excerpt:

“Social entrepreneurs solve problems by disrupting existing systems, as microfinance has, or through breakthrough product design, like the solar powered lights from d .light design or Barefoot Power. Cultural entrepreneurs, on the other hand, solve problems by disrupting belief systems—using television shows like Glee to initiate viewers into the disability or GLBTQ rights frameworks or the Twitter campaign #mensaythingstome, designed to expose anonymous misogyny online.”

We think this distinction is important because it can help generate increased support and funding for cultural entrepreneurial work. Shifts in beliefs and attitudes don’t occur overnight; highlighting cultural entrepreneurship as its own field encourages funders and supporters to use a more holistic approach when thinking about metrics and impact.

When the article was published, it elicited a range of thoughtful responses. In February, we decided to gather a group of innovators to continue the conversation in person. Some key insights (you can watch a clip here & read the synthesis here):

● Labeling has the power to attract funding and talent. When “social entrepreneur” became an established term, the field began to attract more attention from funders, innovators and the media.

● Many attendees whose work involves creating cultural change felt that the distinction between social and cultural entrepreneurship would be useful in explaining the value of their work to supporters.

● In order to unlock capital from potential donors, you must create clarity. Does “cultural entrepreneurship” make things clearer or more confusing?

● By promoting the practice and concept of cultural “entrepreneurship”, are we perpetuating the notion that small government creates a better society? The term “entrepreneurship” takes the focus away from holding governments accountable for creating better policy.

We are thrilled to have the opportunity to push the conversation further with the Social Edge community. We would love to know the following:

● Do you think the cultural/social entrepreneurship distinction is useful?

● How does one measure impact when the goal is to change hearts and minds?

● Given that so much of cultural entrepreneurship deals in creating story and art with a social message, how do we facilitate this without interrupting the organic creative process?

● Since culture shifts are to a large extent dependent on changing the hearts and minds of influencers within a community, how do you identify who the influencers really are?

Social entrepreneurship or cultural entrepreneurship? Both? Join Lisa Witter, Partner and Change Chief Officer at Fenton, in the conversation.

Charles “Hipbone” Cameron

Hi Lisa, YES

I’m almost tripping over my own shoelaces to say YES here!

We’re pretty used to the idea that it’s worth funding enterprises that address hunger, thirst, conflict, racism, and so forth — specific problems, all of them, and many more — but we’ve never had a category to address *mindset* as such.

I’ve been developing a game that has application wherever thinking is involved, and which specifically gets us past the kinds of tunnel vision that provides "easy" but faulty solutions, black and white discriminations that label "friend" and "foe" on the way to dehumanizing the foe, and so forth. And I’m now at the point where we’re getting ready to go in search of support…

But the project doesn’t fit categories like "education" or "disability" or "hunger" or even "conflict resolution" — which funders tend to fund for — because it addresses a point that’s prior to each of those: the point where we think, have blind spots, intuit, analyze, analogize, get obstinate, loosen up, and decide.

Which turns out to be the fulcrum for moving all the rest.

I’m not sure that "Cultural entrepreneur" exactly covers it either, but it’s certainly the closest yet, and when you speak of changing hearts and minds, we’re on roughly the same page — I’m working on the hearts-and-minds change process itself, though, not change *as it relates to* some specific topic or geographical area or problem. Does that fit?

I’m also in the early stages of putting together a book about the shift in *mode of thinking* that we need, if we’re to come to grips with today’s complex issues and wicked problems — provisional title, "ReThinking Thinking"…

Anyway, here’s an enthusiastic YES from me, and I look forward to the comments that others will bring — I believe this is indeed an important topic.
- Lisa Witter
  
  Hi Lisa, YES
  
  CCameron:
  
  Thanks for the reply. Glad this is a useful frame/paradigm. I’m interested in your "mode of thinking" piece – please share when you’re ready.
  
  I’m curious, what about "cultural entrepreneur" doesn’t work…I think there would be a lot to learn in teasing out that piece. Is it the world cultural? Is it the pairing of the two? Is there a better word/phrase?
  
  Looking forward to a continued dialogue,
  
  Lisa
  - Charles “Hipbone” Cameron
    
    Hi Lisa, YES
    
    Oh, I’m okay with the phrase, and like the idea a lot. But I don’t want to hog the conversation here, & will be in touch by email — I’m eager to hear what others have to say.
Francis Madojemu

Cultural Entrepreneurship

I have to agree and say yes too! We have finally come full circle to truly facing today’s challenges. This distinction would definitely help put focus on culture and it’s critical role in shaping the society.

Where I come from negative cultural practices have frustrated most plans and projects because no matter how good the plans are as long as these are ignored progress is stunted

People who shape the culture in a community would have to be seen as influencers I think

Great dimension to consider today!

Francis

rec-laim.com
- Lisa Witter
  
  Cultural Entrepreneurship
  
  Interesting point about negative cultural practices… in the work that you do do you focus on stopping those practices directly or providing a new cultural way to address the issue it was originally designed to solve?
  
  I agree that people who shape culture are the powerful influencers – who are some names that pop to mind?
  
  Thanks,
  
  Lisa
Julie Frieswyk

Certainly Useful, Albeit a Mouthful (see last line)

At first glance I love this distinction and find it useful for the above mentioned points (mainly funding opportunities and managing expectations), albeit slightly confusing (as I will explain below). Just as we separate sociology and psychology, as they are each working on different levels of the human experience, these two types of entrepreneurship are working on different levels of societal influence. I would say that cultural entrepreneurship is more psychologically inclined and henceforth has the possibility to create far more impact than that of social entrepreneurship. Approaching an issue from the inside (or the mind/heart level) will always be more effective and more sustainable than doing so from the outside. Although I cannot say it is easier. In fact, it is something that takes a quality somewhat lacking in today’s fast-paced world: patience.

And thus he issue of how to measure the impact of such campaigns and enterprises arises. Can one measure how many hearts have been uplifted from a sermon or a yoga class? Can one measure how a new leader affects the livelihoods of their constituency? The answer is yes, but with time; more time than it takes to measure how many people are now wearing shoes or glasses. But there are indeed metrics that can be set up and measured over time requiring investors and project managers alike to take on a patience that does not come easily or naturally with our number-crunching, analysis-hungry professional society. (Maybe we should start a cultural movement to address this? Hmm)

As for interrupting the organic creative process of art and writing; who is to say that all forms of art aren’t always a message for society, for humanity? Is it any different to paint a piece for an art gallery or for a campaign? Can a person’s need to express themselves and their urgency for change in the world through film, word or any other canvas be discounted as not being entirely creative? I see no disruption here. It is for each individual to decide how their creativity is manifested through their work and/or leisure.

Key influencers would seem quite easy to pin down. Who has the Twitter following? Who is selling the most books? However, anyone who has ever studied psychology or even philosophy (especially eastern) might argue that it is not always as it seems who holds the key to the hearts and minds of people. It seems this task will also fall under the somewhat ambiguous and hard-to-pin-down category as the impact metrics. This will require an increased level of patience but more importantly a leadership that is as good at listening to their own hearts as they are listening to logic and reason. Intuition, as pointed out in Malcolm Gladwell’s “Blink”, is a highly effective tool and when properly attuned can produce great results. I propose that within cultural entrepreneurship it is not only that we are looking to change the hearts and minds of people and society, but we are doing so from within enterprises and leadership that already have these two areas aligned. And since social entrepreneurs should also have these attributes, they too contribute to this larger cultural change. In this I see the term “cultural entrepreneurship” as the larger of the two types, perhaps the more important of the two, but certainly they are in synergy.

The confusion I mentioned in opening is due to the fact that culture is generally part of society, and so one might assume that societal change would be the more important of the two. However, I find cultural change far more pressing in creating lasting, sustainable change. Social entrepreneurs address issues arising from cultural influence (example: providing glasses in a society whose culture has not yet produced healthcare options or coverage). Cultural entrepreneurs influence the people who comprise said cultures (example: campaigns to spark interest in public policy). These people and their ever changing cultures go on to influence and change the social issues addressed by social entrepreneurs. (Now that was a mouthful!) It’s both! It’s synergy. We need both so let’s keep up the momentum!
Ravi Arapurakal – Wholeecology Strategist

Yes, we need more than SE. But CE’s too broad. We need somthing much sharper.

Social entrepreneurship (SE) is important because so much damage of all kinds is happening around us. Most of this damage is caused by systemic human/social human behavior. Hence, entrepreneurship that makes the human/social causes of the kinds of damage that call for SE to end or reduce the damage – certainly necessary.

In this context, it is also certainly desirable for cultural strategies to be considered.

If SE is not adequately applying cultural solutions toward effecting cultural interventions to achieve the end or reduction of the kinds of damage it is seeking to address, it’s not because SE can’t. So we don’t need a new kind of entrepreneurship called Cultural Entrrepreneurship (CE) for this purpose.

If we need a new kind of entrepreneurship, it is address what SE is not set up to consider, namely, the root causes of the kinds of damage it is concerned with ending or reducing.

So the Social Entrepreneurship vs. Cultural Entrepreneurship question is not one about enhancing implementation, It’s on an entirely different axis of the matter; that of cause and effect; that of how far upstream or downstream to address the problem.

We do need a new kind of entrepreneurship to neglected and important matter of ending or reducing the causes of all these kinds of damage, if only because it should be typically less difficult and expensive to prevent the development of the mindsets that generate the behavior patterns that cause the damage – than to reverse or at least stop them after they are established practice.

Even as we explore this issue, the mindset causes of emergent behavior patterns which will eventually cause future damages might be forming unseen all around us. We need a whole new kind of entrepreneurship that focuses on working upstream of the patterns of behavior that will bring about the damage, and such an entrepreneurship will certainly need to focus more on the cultural dimensions that give rise to the behavior patterns that will cause such future damage, even if it is only similar or the same kinds of damage – by other humans in the future.

The term ‘cultural’ seems too broad for such an entrepreneurship. I would suggest zooming in on the specific parts of the cultural where wrong knowledge or lack of good knowledge are most likely to set the causal chains of new motivations, new intentions, new behaviors, which will inevitably bring about more damage.
MarkPomerantz

Cultural entrepreneurship

Whatever you call it "cultural entrepreneurship" is important. George Lakos and your firm are examples of how important. I use the multi-part frame of "social innovation" consisting of community focused entrepreneurship (aka social entrepreneurship), community focused design & technology (aka appropriate technology), and community focused leadership (aka transformational leadership, transcendent leadership, et al). To me "cultural entrepreneurship" is part of that community or globally focused transformational leadership frame.
- Lisa Witter
  
  Cultural entrepreneurship
  
  Appreciate the "transformational leadership" concept connected to this.
  - MarkPomerantz
    
    Cultural entrepreneurship
    
    I think the term cultural entrepreneurship is sometime applied to "cultural tourism" and the marketing of the ethnic culture of a geographic region.
Dana Langlois

The problem with the term cultural entrepreneur

The problem I see in using the term cultural entrepreneur in this context is that it potentially undermines the existing social entrepreneurs/hip. By creating another label it narrows the scope of SEs and suggests that they are unable or shouldn’t affect behavioral change. As much as creating new definitions can develop the field, it can equally un-develop existing practices. By dividing the field it can lead to a hierarchy of social change/impact—in essence the thinkers and the doers. When in reality one is useless without the other. The issue should be about integrating a holistic approach that looks at both the intrinsic values as well as the everyday, quantifiable effects.

Secondly, coming from the arts I find the term confusing. For me cultural practices are directly related to the arts—visual, performing and other creative fields. I have used the term myself in reference to my work in researching and experimenting with curatorial practices and producing/supporting contemporary arts, while generating an income that make it sustainable.
- Lisa Witter
  
  The problem with the term cultural entrepreneur
  
  Dana-
  
  Agreed that cultural and social entrepreneurial work are deeply linked and that one could not exist without the other. Is it possible that creating another label leads to a deeper synergy and strengthens both fields, instead of pitting them against each other? Curious to hear more about why you think it would be the latter.
  
  I hear you on the "culture" and it’s connection to the arts. A few people have mentioned that in the past (especially if they work in the arts themselves.) It is something to consider.
  
  Thanks!
  
  Lisa
DanielBassill

Is this a term that will be around in 10 years?

I appreciate you starting the discussion on SSIR and bringing it here. I posted a comment on the SSIR site so won’t repeat it here.

I’ve been involved in community organizing at a local and global level for almost 30 years and have also spent 17 years creating corporate advertising that drew customers to more than 400 stores in 40 states on a daily basis.

Unless we can find a much greater flow of flexible resources to support our efforts to collect, organize and share information and ideas we’ll never create the advertising reach and frequency needed for those ideas to dramatically shift thinking, habits and ultimately have an impact on solving some of the social and environmental problems that plague the world.

When I was a boy in the 1950s the term "fast food" did not mean what it does today. In the 1970′s the term "PC" did not convey the same range of ideas and images that it does today. "Web" now means more than something spiders build.

I’ve been in Social Edge for over six years and still see attempts to limit the definition of "social entrepreneurs" to people who earn income from selling products and services vs people who generate revenue from many sources to fund the social benefit work they do. In my mind, one is a "small tent" that only includes a limited number of people and the other is an "expansive tent" under which many people can find reasons to work together.

If "cultural entrepreneur" can become a word that conveys instant meaning to people who do work intended to change habits and behaviors of donors, volunteers and policy makers, not just people living in distressed situations, then I’m all for it. Too many eyes glaze over when I try to describe the knowledge networking and intermediary role needed to support large groups of people working toward a common purpose. Too few donors are reaching out to support this work on an on-going and flexible basis.

However, is this the right phrase? Will enough people understand and embrace it? Will it be as powerful in conveying meaning as "fast food" or "PC" in 10 or 20 years? I really don’t know the answer to this.
- Lisa Witter
  
  Is this a term that will be around in 10 years?
  
  Daniel,
  
  Thanks for continuing the conversation. It’s so valuable to hear an advertising perspective on "cultural entrepreneurship." I do wonder if it’s the right phrase… it makes a lot of sense to me as someone familiar with social entrepreneurship, but not sure about those outside of the choir. Can you think of anything catchier?
  
  Lisa
  - DanielBassill
    
    Is this a term that will be around in 10 years?
    
    While I participate in Social Edge, I also participate in many other groups, and draw ideas from each. For instance this article talking about "Harmonic Vibrancy" was one that I found today. http://networkingaction.net/…/
    
    When I find people talking about network building, collaboration, innovation in ways that I feel would support bringing people together to learn and ultimately share common goals I add the link to my library so I can come back to it later in my own reflection, and so others can find it too. Thus I added the above link to this section. http://tinyurl.com/TMI-ProcessImp-Collaboration
    
    As I build the library I reach out to try to connect the groups with myself and each other and try to focus on collective actions that would change the flow of resources into a sector, thus improving the chances of achieving long-term outcomes.
    
    In the video at this link a leader of a collective effort that was featured on SSIR a year or so ago (http://www.ssireview.org/articles/entry/collective_impact) told of how difficult it is to bring people to the table. He said non profits have a "RFP mentality" that forces them to chase grants and donor objectives. He said "in the end, data doesn’t drive how funds flow." And he said "if you can influence flow of funds, npo leaders could devote more time to doing work rather than chasing dollars and that would lead to systems change and improve outcomes."
    
    His work is associated with the term "collective impact" yet it is attempting to change belief systems and how people work together to solve problems based on a much wider range of available information/choices of actions.
    
    Thus it might fall under the title of "cultural entrepreneurship". I see a bandwagon forming around "collective impact" and that might mean in a few years if someone said to a donor "I’m doing collective impact" the donor might volunteer to help.
    
    I think the test for "Cultural entrepreneurship", "Harmonic Vibrancy" or any other new definitions for what we’ve been doing under different names for a long time will come from how many users apply this to their work, what results they can demonstrate and what type of high level attention they can generate.
Sarah Thelwall

Where did the terms of social and cultural entrepreneurship come from and why does this matter?

I’d like to suggest that when considering the usefulness of this distinction between social and cultural entrepreneurship and indeed between these two and profit-maximising entrepreneurship it is important to understand a bit more of the background as to where the term cultural entrepreneurship came from. In the eight years I’ve been working with non-profit cultural organisations on their sustainability my focus has been on reviewing their intangible assets (though the same holds true for their tangible assets) and exploring new ways to leverage these into income. The focus has been on demand side i.e. market applications not supply side i.e. grant and donation based leveraging of assets.

There is of course the risk that others mention that success in entrepreneurial activities could lead to a reduction in willingness for funders to support them or at a macro level letting governments off the hook of funding culture. However this has been more about making an assumption that grant funding levels will at best not rise and that you cannot therefore grow an organisation from grant funding & private donations alone.

In this sense cultural entrepreneurship is an addition to the supply side economics and has more in common with both social entrepreneurship and profit-maximising entrepreneurship and separates these activities from traditional ideas about being given a grant each year and spending it but being limited in the impact by the funds being granted. This is very different to any entreprenurial approach about finding demand and using transactions to grow capacity and thus impact.
Sean Peters

Very interesting concept, but not sure “cultural entrepreneur” is the right phrasing..

Lisa, thanks for hosting this topic. When you first wrote in SSIR the article quickly made the rounds amongst my friends and I was really excited to have a phrase for the concept.

That said, after spending some time thinking about it I feel like this concept is still finding its feet. Here are some concerns:

1) There’s a branding issue with the phrase, in that http://www.culturalentrepreneur.org currently leverages the same phrase for a very different meaning. Under their definition, cultural entrepreneurship is referencing business start-ups that deal in culture industries – for example, a traditional dance studio, or artisan textile shops. Their blog dates back to 2009.

They have also connected with other places online where cultural entrepreneur is being used in the same way. Some examples:

http://www.culturalentrepreneur.se/

http://magnakultura.multiply.com/journal

Of course, the meanings of words are fluid and contingent, and so with press on SSIR and SE there’s always room to "rebrand" the phrase, but it will be a bit of an uphill battle, especially if the funders being approached are larger foundations who may be familiar with the previous iteration of "cultural entrepreneur" (for reference, W.K.Kellogg has funded culturalentrepreneur.org to conduct research on their iteration of "cultural entrepreneur").

2) There seems to be significant overlap academically between the term "Norm Entrepreneur" and "Cultural Entrepreneur". I’m far from an expert, but from what I can glean from academic articles online it seems Norm Entrepreneur is often used as a phrase in studies of international law and change through institutional bodies, with emphasis on the tension between agency and structure. Where these overlap, and how they are similar and dissimilar, would be interesting meat to chew. I would love to hear from those who have more experience in this space.

3) It would be fantastic to see some kind of manifesto on ethical "cultural entrepreneurship" under your definition. I think there’s something really special at the heart of what you’re trying to get at – the idea that positive cultural change can come from within through a reframing of cultural ideals, as in the "slut walk" example. However, I could imagine this kind of concept being quickly applied by those less thoughtful on social issues in cultures to which they are not a part of, or to which there is a great power imbalance. Cultural change needs to come from within; one could imagine in an extreme case a group of intrepid cultural entrepreneurs, armed with the White Man’s Burden, saving poor "savages" through "cultural entrepreneurship" – enter colonialism writ large.

This is not to say that all cultural values should be held equal under an extreme form of cultural relativism, or that there can’t be lively debate and discussion across cultural boundaries. I would only point out that the concept as it currently stands implies a positive end-result to cultural entrepreneurship, and this is a risky assumption, especially if the agent is not part of the affected culture.

4) All that said, I still really love the idea behind "cultural entrepreneurship". Its a fantastic marketing phrase to donors (point #1 aside) and has the potential to reinvigorate the funding of activism as a theory of change. I’d love to see a concept emerge to fill this gap. I’m not convinced "cultural entrepreneurship" is the answer (although I suppose time will tell as these two meanings battle it out in democratic public lexicon), but selfishly I’d like it to be.

I’ll close off by pointing out sharktruth.org as an example of an incredibly interesting initiative started by a cultural entrepreneur. Shark Truth works from within the Chinese diasporic community to reframe cultural values around the consumption of shark-fin soup. I think these kinds of initiatives need more attention.

At the very least, I think you’ve identified a significant market gap in our social change dictionaries.
- Lisa Witter
  
  Very interesting concept, but not sure “cultural entrepreneur” is the right phrasing..
  
  Thanks a lot for this. I continue to be impressed about how thoughtful this community is. Wow…
  
  I’m glad you like the concept…really appreciate the "norms" piece of your post. That’s exactly right – it’s about changing norms.
  
  We’re working on a manifesto like project.
  
  We don’t take the cultural relativism point lightly either…know about the opportunities and challenges and are very aware of our position/POV.
  
  We will check out Shark Truth and post to our Tumblr http://culent.tumblr.com/. Keep them coming.
  
  I’d love to chat more…any chance you’re going to be at the Skoll World Forum? (Question goes for anyone reading this.)
  
  Either way, here is my email (lisa@fenton.com). Please shoot me your’s.
  
  Best,
  
  Lisa
  - Sean Peters
    
    Very interesting concept, but not sure “cultural entrepreneur” is the right phrasing..
    
    Thanks for the kind words. I’m excited for what’s to come!
    
    I won’t be at Skoll this year but my co-founder for catalystinitiative.org is Shawn Smith, who was a Skoll scholar 09/10. Would be happy to connect you two.
    
    Full disclosure: I recently agreed to sit on the board of Shark Truth, as I was excited by their thoughtful approach to cultural change from within. Take my recommendation of them with all the bias that entails.
    
    I’ll follow up on the other pieces by email. Thanks again Lisa!
Julie Manga

Cultural entrpreneurs/social entrepreneurs

The issue of shifting culture is complex – Shifting beliefs, assumptions, the ways we know what we know, what we believe to be "true" – It’s very much about what we think and feel "with" vs. the mostly the content of what we think or feel. There’s a whole body of literature that could be really helpful in navigating this terrain – although alot of it is written in a pretty obscure way. IF we are talking about shifting culture, this spans many dimensions of society – shifting the narratives or discourse we live inside of and mostly go unnoticed.

And, add to this, that this is not mostly a cognitive matter, but an emotional matter – and for real shifts to happen, requires a reshaping of actual physiologically based neural pathways – something, neuroscientific reserach tells us, happens mostly through repetition. So cultural entrepreneurship requires looking systemically at issues – institutions and individual and collective practices – which always involve issues of power!(Whose narratives or discourses prevail, and shape both our institutions and our everyday practices.)

I’m not aiming for a conclusive opinion in what I write here. Rather, I’m intending to open up the territory – to look at the broader systemic issues involved in this issue, along with examning how this kind of changes happens at the individiual level (including the brain/nervous system!). My taking this multi-angled approach comes from my being both a sociologist and an executive coach (focused on working with folks working in the social innovation space and helping them cultivate their capacity to navigate uncertainty, ambiguity, complexity, velocity, unpredictability, near constant change.)
- Lisa Witter
  
  Cultural entrpreneurs/social entrepreneurs
  
  Julie:
  
  Thanks for your thoughtful note. I totally agree that this is super complex. Why we are so interested in this issue now is 1) the urgency of culture change needs 2) the role technology can play and 3) how our knowledge of cognitive science can move culture/social norm changes down the road.
  
  We would love if you can share what you think the most important literature in the field is.
  
  Thanks,
  
  Lisa
Sam Daley-Harris

Cultural Entrepreneurs or Civic Entrepreneurs

Over the last few years I have used the phrase civic entrepreneur which I think is synonomous with cultural entrepreneurs. Recently author David Bornstein asked me to outline how RESULTS, the anti-poverty lobbying organization I founded 32 years ago, played a catalytic role in creating the microfinance revolution and the child survival revolution -how we changed the minds of influencers, in this case Members of CVongres and the media. Here is what I wrote on microfinance:

RESULTS’ Role in the Microfinance Revolution

Problem: In the mid-1980s the poor and very poor around the world had almost no access to formal financial services and had to resort primarily to moneylenders and loans from family members where possible. By 1997 the first global survey by the Microcredit Summit found that 13.5 million had a microloan so it is safe to estimate that fewer than one million had access to financial services in 1986, 11 years earlier.

Opportunity: Grameen Bank had begun its pioneering work in 1976, become a regulated bank in 1983 and had come to the attention of RESULTS in 1985.

Action: Between November 1986 and November 1987 RESULTS lobbied the U.S. Congress to provide microcredit to the very poor. By the end of 1987 the volunteers had generated 100 newspaper editorials in support of the microcredit legislation. In 1987 they arranged for Prof. Yunus to speak by conference call to editorial writers in 28 U.S. cities. This was 19 years before Muhammad Yunus received the Nobel Peace Prize. In 1997 RESULTS Educational Fund launched the Microcredit Summit Campaign.

After receiving the Nobel Peace Prize, Professor Yunus said,

"From that day in 1987 when RESULTS arranged for me to talk by conference call to editorial writers in dozens of US cities, to the announcement of the Nobel Peace Prize in 2006, no other organization has done more to put Grameen Bank on the map than RESULTS and RESULTS Educational Fund’s Microcredit Summit Campaign.

"More importantly, no other organization has been as critical a partner in seeing to it that microcredit is used as a tool to eradicate poverty and empower women than RESULTS and RESULTS Educational Fund’s Microcredit Summit Campaign."

Outcomes 25 years later: The Microcredit Summit Campaign counts 205 million with a microloan in 2010 up from fewer than one million clients in 1986. Funding from the US government has grown from $0 in 1986 to $265 million a year in 2012.

To understand the catalytic role the volunteers of RESULTS played in this lobbying campaign, their role as cultural or civic entrepreneurs, see chapters 15 and 21 in Reclaiming Our Democracy: Healing the Break Between People and Government.
- Lisa Witter
  
  Cultural Entrepreneurs or Civic Entrepreneurs
  
  Sam:
  
  Thanks for your post and for sharing the "civic entrepreneur" term. When I think of civic I think in the government/political space but will think more about it. I agree that Professor Yunus has started a culture change (or civic change).
  
  We have been thinking, as well, about the term "political entrepreneur" but perhaps "civic" is more encompassing.
  
  Thanks for your post and interest.
  
  Lisa