I wish to highlight this great op-ed by David Brooks:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/13/opinion/brooks-sam-spade-at-starbucks.html?_r=2
The simple message - fixing public institutions and public / social structures for decision making, delivering law and order, etc., especially in places like Pakistan or Kenya ("failing states"), is essential.
It's hard for example for an American expat to do so in Kenya. But if one has any sort of national or regional ties in a "failing state", one absolutely has to dedicate oneself to changing the public system, rather than take it as a given, and try to work within its constraints in an NGO or Social Enterprise. Although both are great causes, I would argue strongly that one is much more important than the other. And too many talented young local individuals who wish to see social change, are often resigned to the fact that they cannot drive change in the public sector, and so end up in NGOs and Social Enterprises - good effort, but they could do better.
This is not about bottom-up versus top-down development; Bill Easterly versus Jeff Sachs; donor push versus need-based pull; large scale versus drop-in-the-ocean. It's about the simple fact that if the fundamental enabling environment isn't healthy, nothing will ever work.
