Helping the “poorest of the poor” is an attractive concept. After all, that’s what development is supposed to be about isn’t it. A question that I’ve noticed come up though when people discuss the private sector approach to poverty alleviation is whether targeting interventions at the poorest of the poor is the most feasible means of improving their livelihoods—in short, should these private sector development projects be reaching out to the vulnerable or the viable?

I think a lot of projects choose to focus on the latter. The idea is that by investing in enterprising individuals who have already had a degree of success, you’re more effectively able to provide opportunities to the vulnerable. An example is training agrodealers (someone who buys agricultural inputs wholesale and sells them within a community). By training individuals who already have an understanding of business concepts, and the associated literacy, accounting, and record keeping skills, success is much more likely, which ultimately means better service provision to farmers in need.

I think that it can be a difficult concept to market to donors though, who, understandably, are eager to know that their dollars are reaching those that need them the most. When you invest in improving water access, education systems, or transportation infrastructure, there’s a feeling that the benefits will reach everyone. The hope is though, that stimulating the private sector will also be a means of providing opportunity on a wide-scale, and in a sustainable manner.

Um any thoughts or opinions?