Giving Work Not Aid: An Interview With Samasource founder on How Microwork Can Help Eradicate Poverty

 Leila Chirayath Janah started the non-profit social enterprise Samasource that brings computer-based work to the world’s poor, making outsourcing a tool for development.  Currently working in Kenya, Uganda, Cameroon, Ghana, and Pakistan, Samasource provides what Janah calls micro-work for hundreds of refugees, youth and women—who make up 70% of the workers. The businesses are run on principles similar to fair trade companies. This innovative concept has earned several business competitions and a spot at TechCrunch 50.

Her interest in development dates back to high school when she taught English at a school for the blind and experienced poverty for the first time.  After studying at Harvard and the Kennedy School, Janah went to work in development.  It  was disillusioning:  her first day at the World Bank, she saw-- directly opposite the Bank’s mandate “Our dream is a world free of poverty”--a sign announcing  “How to finance your Second Home”.   Eventually, this daughter of Indian immigrants decided business might provide the solution to poverty. So Janah got a job as a management consultant—and went to India to advise a traditional outsourcing company and then got the idea to give work—not aid—to the next billion. 

Where did you get the idea of outsourcing for development?

It was a long incubation—starting back in Ghana.  One thing that struck me--the students would stay after school for hours--asking questions about how to study or get jobs in the US; it was apparent, they were looking for way out.

I felt the whole system was unfair.  If you could give those young people the same opportunities I had-- the same scholarships and classes, they would do really well.  But because they were born in the wrong place, they didn’t have the same opportunity.  I had just won the birth lottery.

At the time, development organizations were not focused on creating opportunity, but on giving handouts.  It was old school development. In the capital, I’d see the development people with big cars at the five-star hotels. They weren’t out in the field.  There was a huge disconnect between the mandate of these agencies, and what they were doing on the ground.

There was no movement of the needle to alleviate poverty.   It was not a culture that tried to find answers to these problems.

Isn’t education important to moving that needle? 

After working in India, I started digging deeper and found that many people living in the developing world are in countries where there is 60-70% unemployment.  The kids there have been told their whole lives that only path out of poverty is education, but then they do that and there’s no jobs for them.

Somebody invested in them and educated them, but that education went completely to waste.

Doesn’t outsourcing already bring jobs to people and help equalize wealth globally?

Thomas Friedman argues the world is getting flat.  But it’s not.  Most of the work is going to big cities and middle-income people, it’s not going to the poor places. Less than 1% is going into high poverty areas. And the workers themselves are not making much.

Outsourcing is a $160 billion industry.  In fact, most of the market-share is in the US and after that India, China.  And this industry has produced seven billionaires—all Chinese, Indian and American men. 

If you look at what outsourcing is doing in India, it’s increasing the wealth gap. 
Technology is one trend in equalization, but if poor people don’t have the chance to earn wealth, they’re going to continue to be poor.

What’s more, India and China are starting to look for lower cost countries, they’ll start places in Africa, but wealth won’t stay in that economy it will be piped back.  It will pay off shareholders

How is Samasource’s practice of outsourcing different?

The challenge in social enterprise is to keep wealth near the workers and the people who need to be lifted out of poverty.
Right now, it’s easier to set up a center in Bangalore, but it’s harder and more expensive to bring it to people in farther flung, marginal places.  The traditional role of development is to reach the people, which is what we’re trying to do.

We won’t break even for several years, or maybe not ever. But going those areas helps us reach the poorest of the poor. 
Isn’t microfinance a good way to bring money to women in the developing world?

There has been interesting work on microfinance, it’s not a very good strategy for economic development or to  alleviate poverty for the poorest of  the poor

The money goes to fund small services companies that cater to local markets—such as a woman who runs a beauty salon; they tend not to scale up and they don’t bring trade into the economy.  It’s not bringing in new capital, what brings transformative impact is trade with economies that have more wealth--provided that tends to be what makes them poor.
Trade can increase the size of the pie because it brings in new capital, that’s how the big economies have gotten richer.  And so that’s what’s so cool about micro work, because it involves a simple task—like mechanical Turk jobs, or facebook apps-- that just take a minute to complete. 

How is outsourcing or microwork good for women?

Because, they are often disconnected from the formal labour force because they have to raise the family, and they can’t do that while working 9 to  5 . Or they might be culturally prohibited from working outside the home.

They’re often pressured into certain kinds of jobs that don’t fit their skill level; so women who are educated and speak decent English, are  prevented from doing better jobs—which is more of a problem in South Asia than Africa.  

There’s a notion that micro-lending to women raises up the entire community, does the same happen with micro-work? 

Women do tend to spend money on education and providing health care to the family.  They are often more likely to invest in their husband, than their husbands are to invest in them.

In Pakistan, the head of Women’s Digital League, has two children and she’s been able to pay all the school fees. 

She’s now making money than more men in her village and they’re listening to her for the first time. That is sure to change things.