ORI GIN AL PA PER

Social Enterprise and Development: The KickStartModel

Michael D. Galvin • Lora Iannotti

� International Society for Third-Sector Research and The Johns Hopkins University 2014

Abstract Referred to as change agents, innovators, practical dreamers, and pio-

neers of our era, the literature on social entrepreneurs exhibits high hopes for the

future of social enterprise in international development. Yet, the field has come to a

crossroads in its history as many remain unsure of just how social enterprise differs

from NGOs on the one hand, and standard commercial enterprises on the other. This

article examines the relatively new roots of social entrepreneurship in the context of

global development paradigms, looking at the pros and cons of a field which

remains controversial from the perspective of both the private and the public sector.

Using the model of the prominent social enterprise KickStart International, we

illustrate how KickStart’s social enterprise model corresponds with current trends in

the world of development internationally, with its particular focus on sub-Saharan

Africa. Finally, we examine how recent evaluation research has shed light on

KickStart and the contributions of social enterprise, as well as how evaluation

research can inform social enterprise’s contributions to international development.

Resume Les designant comme des agents du changement, des innovateurs, des

reveurs pragmatiques ainsi que des pionniers de notre ere, les publications sur les

entrepreneurs sociaux expriment les plus grands espoirs quant au futur d’une

This paper was prepared with funding support from the Skandalaris Center for Entrepreneurial Studies at

Washington University in St. Louis. Michael Galvin conducted the study and developed the paper under

the supervision of Dr. Lora Iannotti who is participating in the impact evaluation of KickStart

International in Kenya and Tanzania.

M. D. Galvin (&) � L. Iannotti

George Warren Brown School of Social Work and Public Health, Washington University

in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO, USA

e-mail: mdgalvin@gmail.com

L. Iannotti

e-mail: liannotti@wustl.edu

123

Voluntas

DOI 10.1007/s11266-013-9424-z

entreprise sociale au sein d’un developpement international. Toutefois, ce domaine

s’est heurte a un dilemme dans son developpement car beaucoup demeurent in-

certains quant a la question de savoir en quoi l’entreprise sociale differe des ONG

d’une part, et des entreprises commerciales traditionnelles d’autre part. Cet article

s’interesse aux racines relativement nouvelles de l’entrepreneuriat social dans le

contexte des paradigmes du developpement mondial, en analysant le pour et le

contre d’un secteur qui demeure controverse du point de vue tant du secteur prive

que du secteur public. En recourant a l’exemple de l’entreprise sociale tres connue

KickStart International, nous illustrons comment le modele d’entreprise sociale de

cette organisation est conforme aux tendances actuelles dans le monde du devel-

oppement a l’echelle internationale, lequel se concentre particulierement sur l’Af-

rique subsaharienne. Nous examinons enfin comment la recente recherche

d’evaluation a apporte un eclairage sur KickStart et les contributions de l’entreprise

sociale, ainsi que la maniere dont la recherche d’evaluation peut informer les

contributions de l’entreprise sociale en faveur du developpement international.

Zusammenfassung Die Literatur zu sozialen Unternehmern spricht von Vermi-

ttlern des Wandels, Innovatoren, praktischen Traumern und Pionieren unserer Zeit

und hegt große Hoffnungen fur die Zukunft von Sozialunternehmen in der inter-

nationalen Entwicklung. Doch ist der Bereich an einem Scheideweg in seiner

Geschichte angelangt; denn es bleibt die Unsicherheit daruber, wie sehr sich So-

zialunternehmen von nicht-staatlichen Organisationen einerseits und den regularen

Wirtschaftsunternehmen andererseits uberhaupt unterscheiden. Dieser Beitrag un-

tersucht die relativ neuen Wurzeln des sozialen Unternehmertums vor dem Hin-

tergrund globaler Entwicklungsparadigmen und betrachtet die Vor- und Nachteile

eines Bereichs, der sowohl aus der Perspektive des privaten als auch des offentli-

chen Sektors kontrovers bleibt. Wir verwenden das Modell des renommierten So-

zialunternehmens KickStart International und zeigen, wie sein Modell zum sozialen

Unternehmertum den gegenwartigen internationalen Entwicklungstrends entspricht,

mit besonderem Fokus auf Subsahara-Afrika. Abschließend untersuchen wir, wie

neueste Bewertungsforschungen Aufschluss uber KickStart und die Beitrage sozi-

aler Unternehmen geben und wie die Bewertungsforschung die Beitrage sozialer

Unternehmen an der internationalen Entwicklung ausweisen konnen.

Resumen Denominados agentes del cambio, innovadores, sonadores practicos y

pioneros de nuestra era, el material publicado sobre los emprendedores sociales

muestra grandes esperanzas en el futuro de la empresa social en el desarrollo in-

ternacional. Sin embargo, el campo ha llegado a una encrucijada en su historia, ya

que muchos siguen sin estar seguros de como difiere la empresa social de las ONG

por un lado, y la empresa comercial estandar por otro. El presente artıculo examina

las raıces relativamentre nuevas del espıritu emprendedor social en el contexto de los

paradigmas de desarrollo mundial, examinando los pros y los contras de un campo

que sigue siendo controvertido desde la perspectiva tanto del sector privado como del

sector publico. Utilizando el modelo de la prominente empresa social KickStart

International, ilustramos como el modelo de empresa social de KickStart corre-

sponde a las tendencias actuales en el mundo del desarrollo internacionalmente, con

Voluntas

123

su foco de atencion especıfico en el Africa subsahariana. Finalmente, examinamos

como la investigacion de evaluacion reciente ha arrojado luz sobre KickStart y las

contribuciones de la empresa social, ası como tambien como la investigacion de

evaluacion puede informar de las contribuciones de la empresa social al desarrollo

internacional.

Keywords Development � Africa � KickStart � Social enterprise

Social Entrepreneurship and Development Paradigms

Definitions of Social Entrepreneurship

Social enterprises are generally understood to be organizations which apply

business strategies to achieve philanthropic ends (Nicholls 2008). Social entrepre-

neurs, therefore, do not measure their success based on monetary profit, but rather

by their capacity to affect social change. In the United States, the largest

organization representing social enterprise, The Social Enterprise Alliance (SEA),

maintains the slogan, ‘‘Where Mission Meets the Marketplace.’’ Key to their

definition is that a social enterprise must advance a social or environmental cause

using ‘‘business methods’’ (SEA 2013). A social enterprise therefore aspires to use a

business model with the overall goal of having a significant social impact (Nicholls

2008).

Yet, the difference between what constitutes a social enterprise as opposed to

other better known categories like non-profits, non-governmental organizations

(NGOs), charitable or philanthropic organizations, or governmental agencies is

twofold. First, social enterprises must directly address a social need through their

products and services, which distinguishes them from socially responsible

corporations (SEA 2013). In this way, they attempt to change the way they do

business itself. While some commercial enterprises may consider their objectives to

be social in nature, they are nevertheless more motivated by financial profit when

weighed against the achievement of social objectives. Second, social enterprises use

profit or earned revenue either alone or along with grants and subsidies in order to

operate. This distinguishes them from traditional non-profits which mostly operate

using the latter options (SEA 2013). While many social enterprises function using a

mix of grants and profit from their activities, the ultimate goal remains self-

sufficiency through profit (Nicholls 2008).

History of Social Entrepreneurship

Social enterprise as a field is relatively new to the academic arena. Professor Paul

Light of New York University’s Robert F. Wagner School of Public Service argues

that the field came about as part of a historical progression: in the 1970s people

passionate about public service went into government. However, with the explosion

of the non-profit sector in the 1980s and 1990s, many of these people eventually

began moving away from the civil service. In the United States, the beginning of the

Voluntas

123

social enterprise movement is generally attributed to the government funding cuts

supporting non-profits by the Reagan administration in the 1980s (Kerlin 2010).

Non-profits during this period were therefore compelled to move toward the idea of

commercial revenue generation as a way to replace the loss of government funds in

order to be sustainable. Today, the private sector is even considered a viable option

for service, Light argues, as many individuals are applying their skills at non-profits

using more traditional business models (Light 2009). To further exhibit the newness

of the field, between 1990 and 2004, few academic articles published in peer-

reviewed journals actually used the term ‘‘social entrepreneurship’’ (Mair 2006: 3).

In the last decade however, after receiving attention from Tony Blair, the World

Economic Forum, and business-people like e-Bay founder Jeff Skoll, awareness of

the field has increased exponentially (Mair 2006).

Addressing concerns related to poverty alleviation, health care provision,

education and training, environmental protection, and advocacy work, social

entrepreneurship has partly incorporated fields traditionally reserved for the public

sector into its scope, which some consider to be a form of privatization (Nicholls

2008). However, while they may be introducing the profit motive into fields where it

was never utilized before, social enterprises argue they are beneficial in another

way: namely, that they are injecting the need to address social concerns into the

world of business. As author Johanna Mair writes, ‘‘the extensive literature on

entrepreneurship has only recently embraced the idea that entrepreneurial actors

may be driven by more than a profit motive’’ (Mair 2006: 3). Are the concerns of the

public sector slowly seeping into the private sector, or are those of the private sector

using social enterprise as a vehicle for the takeover of the public sector? This

struggle is depicted in Fig. 1.

Public Versus Private Sector Models

Many social enterprises claim to emphasize efficiency and flexibility in contrast to the

supposedly slow-moving and bureaucratic modus operandi of the public sector. Light

highlights the need to alter old models which are ‘‘impervious to change,’’ and require

a new and different culture (Light 2009). The public sector is directly implicated here

as public policies are argued to be divorced from what is happening on the ground, with

rules and procedures that often limit flexibility and responsiveness (Bornstein and

Davis 2010). Whereas bureaucracies are argued to implement preset policies in a top–

down fashion, which are not characterized by trial and error, continuous iteration, and

Private Sector

Public Sector

Social Enterprise

Profit Impact MotiveSocial Impact Motive

Fig. 1 Social enterprise in relation to private and public sectors

Voluntas

123

a focus on results, social enterprises emphasize efficiency and profitability as a basic

component of overall effectiveness (Bagnoli and Megali 2009). The implication here

is that social enterprises, using new models from the private sector, will remedy the

flaws of past models.

The literature on social entrepreneurship therefore tends to present the field as a

means for correcting the deficiencies inherent in public sector models, by putting

forward more business-centric models. However, it is equally important to consider

the models that the private sector currently presents in the global economy.

Economic theorist and author Raj Patel writes that corporations in a world of

corporations are only truly guided by one cardinal rule of market capitalism: ‘‘Buy

cheap, sell dear’’ (Patel 2008: 10). In this respect, private sector models represent

goals that are in their very essence counter to those put forward by most

international development organizations. Patel writes that current structures of the

market economy are currently creating enormous inequalities of wealth within

populations: ‘‘The creative destruction of modern capital, almost by definition,

crushes those least able to protect themselves, and whose contribution to society is

priced low’’ (Patel 2008: 52). In other words, if models presented by the private

sector are not helping the people who need it the most, and in some cases are

actually hurting them further, is this organizational structure that social entrepre-

neurship should strive to emulate?

Regardless of one’s perspective on the public versus private sector debate, the

role of the public sector is changing quickly in regards to international development.

In early 2011, the United States Congress was debating spending cuts of up to $120

million to the budget of the US Agency for International Development. With

shrinking public sector budgets and increasing global crises, many social enterprise

advocates desire to see social entrepreneurs come to the rescue. Light discusses all

the impending threats to populations around the world from global warming, to

overpopulation, unsafe drinking water, oil spills, drought, famine, urban poverty,

etc., and argues that new and innovative solutions are necessary to combat them

(Light 2009). The literature on social entrepreneurship emphasizes heavily the

expanding problems around the globe, focusing on the inability of governments to

confront all of them sufficiently, and particularly in the context of public sector

budgets. One author argues that the best hope for the future lies in the power of

socially motivated, highly empowered individuals to fight for changes at the basic

social level, with ‘‘social innovation’’ (Nicholls 2008: V). Idealized as pioneers,

these social entrepreneurs will supposedly create new models of action through a

trial and error process which the public sector would arguably strain to come up

with itself (Nicholls 2008). The emphasis in the literature, thus, tends to focus on

individual ingenuity as opposed to collective, institutional action. However, whether

or not a business model with a social motive can be economically viable has yet to

be fully explored.

Social Entrepreneurship in Action: The Individual as a Change Agent

Social entrepreneurship focuses on the concept of pursuing innovative solutions to

social problems. Through this entrepreneurial spirit, social entrepreneurs therefore

Voluntas

123

often act boldly regardless of resources available in order to create social value.

Whereas social entrepreneurship is conceived of as a process, a social enterprise is

an organization through which the goals of social entrepreneurship are realized

(Nicholls 2008).

In their emphasis on an entrepreneurial spirit, both social enterprise and social

entrepreneurship highlight the idea of the individual as a change agent, affecting the

lives of many with one revolutionary idea. There have been a few notable success

stories in the last few years, from the spread of microfinance, to charter schools, to

independent living centers, as well as some appropriate technology initiatives, all of

which have affected change on a massive scale (Bornstein and Davis 2010). Light

talks about these examples in the context of ‘‘proof of concept’’ (Light 2009). By

this he means that they went through a process in which the idea was transformed

into a conceivable product through research, development, implementation, and

measurement of results. In addition, the product was able to find a way of entering

people’s lives so that it propelled itself forward as a result of its inherent use value.

Mohammad Yunus and his microfinance institution Grameen Bank operated

under the presumption that Bangladeshis were capable, seeking to build capacity

and self-reliance for themselves and their communities (Bornstein and Davis 2010).

Yet, the idea of the Grameen Bank as a form of microfinance was not a new idea,

but rather a concept that was reconsidered and diffused more effectively by

Mohammad Yunus (Light 2009). The word ‘‘marketing’’ enters into play here, as

the literature on social entrepreneurship emphasizes the importance of being able to

create public awareness for the product in question; though it may not be entirely

new, social enterprises stress that people must be able to find out information about

a given product in order to desire it and consider its application in their lives. In an

article on social entrepreneurship by Yunus, he argues that though it may seem like

social entrepreneurs are moving the field of development in the direction of

capitalism through promotion of things like marketing campaigns, in actuality, they

are moving capitalism more toward humane development initiatives. He considers

this a noble goal as, ‘‘not only is it not necessary to leave the market solely to the

personal-gain seekers, it is extremely harmful to mankind as a whole to do that’’

(Yunus 2008: 41). Yet, while social entrepreneurs may be slowly finding their way

into the marketplace, the idea that social enterprise could change the nature of

global capitalism remains lofty to say the least.

KickStart International: Case Study of a Social Enterprise

A prominent player in the field of social enterprise today, KickStart International

was created as Appropriate Technologies for Enterprise Creation (ApproTEC) by

Martin Fisher and Nick Moon in 1991, changing its name to KickStart in 2005.

Originally established in Kenya in 1991, KickStart has since opened offices in

Tanzania in 2000, and more recently in Mali in 2004. The organization also

distributes its irrigation pumps and other products to surrounding countries such as

Sudan, Uganda, Malawi, Mozambique, Zambia, Senegal, Burkina Faso and other

targeted areas where it can have a high impact. The organization is reported to have

Voluntas

123

a direct impact on three of the United Nation’s Millennium Development Goals:

eradicating poverty and hunger by providing appropriate technologies to create

sustainable incomes; empowering women; and disseminating technology to

developing countries (Seelos et al. 2006).

In an interview with KickStart co-founder and CEO Martin Fisher, he describes

the relationship between his work and the field of social entrepreneurship as

relatively recent. The term social entrepreneur was introduced in 2002; for this

reason the vast majority of his work with KickStart could not even have been

labeled as such. Fisher defines social entrepreneurship as characterized by

‘‘entrepreneurial individuals who use innovative new methodologies to solve large

intractable social problems and develop scalable and replicable models to solve

these problems’’ (Fisher 2011). When inquired about the organization’s relationship

with the private sector, Fisher responds that ‘‘very often social enterprises happen to

be business-like, but I do not think that is exclusive to the definition’’ (Fisher 2011).

However, social enterprises, he argues, must work toward economic independence

not only for themselves, but also for the clients who are encouraged to become

entrepreneurs. At the moment though, KickStart and its pumps remain heavily

subsidized through donor financing, as for every pump sold the organization spends

almost $14 on marketing and earns only $1 in profit (Moon 2011). As an

organization with official non-profit status, a large portion of KickStart’s financing

coming from grants, therefore the organization remains in a transitional stage as it

still functions like many NGOs dependent on foundations and other philanthropic

organizations. The lingering question remains as to whether they will achieve

financial independence from grants and donations.

KickStart’s Mission

The primary mission of KickStart is to ‘‘move millions out of poverty,’’ by

promoting sustainable economic growth and employment creation through the

development and promotion of technologies that can be used by ‘‘dynamic

entrepreneurs’’ to establish and run profitable small-scale enterprises (KickStart

International 2013). KickStart contends that not only can these individuals better the

lives of themselves and their families, but also ‘‘self-motivated private entrepre-

neurs managing small-scale enterprises can play a dynamic role in the economies of

developing countries’’ (KickStart International 2013).

The original idea for KickStart grew out of the problems that the two founders

saw and experienced with traditional development aid initiatives. ‘‘Nick and Martin

remained convinced that there was a better way to address poverty–a model that

would bring together the power of technology with the proven sustainability of the

marketplace and private sector’’ (KickStart International 2013). In this way, their

new trajectory with KickStart’s inception in 1991 corresponded with a common

thread in the literature on social entrepreneurship, which emphasizes a business-like

focus on responsiveness to clients every step of the way (Bornstein and Davis 2010).

In KickStart’s mission, the organization outlines a multistep process in which they

first identify opportunities, then design products, and only afterward do they attempt

to establish a supply chain, develop the market, and finally measure the outcome to

Voluntas

123

see if their intervention has been effective. Since the beginning, KickStart has

therefore been dedicated to advancing solutions to alleviate poverty in sub-Saharan

Africa by establishing a private-sector supply chain to manufacture, distribute, and

sell new tools and equipment to poor African farmers in the hopes of helping them

become small-scale entrepreneurs (Fisher 2006). To this end, KickStart created and

disseminated tens of thousands of high quality, low-cost technologies such as

oilseed presses, cement block presses, and irrigation pumps for small-scale

industries throughout Africa over the last two decades.

Today, KickStart directs its focus toward irrigation pumps for farmers, with two

primary models: a more popular foot-powered treadle pump—strategically named

the Super MoneyMaker—and a more affordable hand-powered MoneyMaker hip

pump. The 1985 invention of a treadle-operated micro-irrigation pump by American

engineer Gunnar Barnes, in Bangladesh, inspired the current design used by

KickStart for its top-selling Super MoneyMaker treadle pump (Fisher 2006).

Starting in 1998, KickStart began developing this line of manually operated

irrigation pumps which allow farmers to easily pull water from a river, pond, or

shallow well, and pressurize it through a hose pipe to reach their crops. The

deliberately-named Super MoneyMaker, for example, can pressurize water to a total

height of 50 feet, pushing it through a hose pipe as far as 400 m, and can irrigate as

much as two acres of land. KickStart has sold 178,500 water pumps as of mid-July

2011, which they estimate to represent up to 150,000 enterprises created and

730,000 people moved out of poverty (KickStart International 2013). Through its

monitoring and evaluation department, KickStart selects a statistically valid sample

of recent purchasers who are visited within a month of purchasing the products—

before any impacts have been realized—then again at 18 months, and again 3-years

after purchase. In this way they can determine how people are moved out of poverty.

Economic Advantages of KickStart’s Approach

While many farmers in sub-Saharan Africa currently still rely on rain to water their

crops, United Nations World Food Programme (UNWFP) reports that irrigation can

increase crop yield by 100–400 % (UNWFP 2011). In addition, with irrigation,

farmers can grow year-round as the production of crops like fruits and vegetables

can sell for significantly higher prices during the dry seasons when supplies dwindle

and market rates increase. Fisher argues that irrigation allows farmers to grow three

or four crop cycles per year as opposed to the one or two possible with rain-fed

agriculture (Fisher 2006). In our interview, Fisher adds that with climate change, it

is becoming even more difficult to be a poor farmer in Africa. But by using

irrigation, which allows crop production even during the dry season or drought,

farmers are able to grow crops when people tend to have less food (Fisher 2011).

KickStart’s Chief Operating Officer Ed Chan-Lizardo corroborates this perspective

arguing that with climate change, as weather patterns become more and more

extreme, many places are likely to see more humanitarian crises and droughts—

such as the one currently causing famine in the Horn of Africa during the summer of

2011. Focus on these types of emergencies will ultimately allow KickStart to

expand its impact, he argues (Chan-Lizardo 2011).

Voluntas

123

Wealthy, large-scale farmers already understand the benefits of irrigation, and in

Kenya, state-of-the-art irrigation equipment is used to make tens of thousands in

profit per season. But until recently no affordable or practical technologies were

available for poor subsistence farmers who represent over 80 % of the population in

sub-Saharan Africa (Fisher 2011). Subsidized to be affordably priced between $35

and $95, KickStart’s MoneyMaker irrigation pumps are therefore considered to be

within the means of most farmers. In addition, though the overwhelming majority of

small-scale farmers do not immediately possess such large sums of capital, they are

meant to see the purchase as an investment which will allow them to earn their

money back within a 6 month period. ‘‘The pump literally lifts farmers from

poverty into the middle class’’ (Fisher 2006: 17).

After the farmers invest in the pump and work for a few seasons, they will most

likely not only recoup the original investment, but will also actually make a profit so

that they can reinvest in new activities such as expanding their operations, starting

another small enterprise, or simply improving the standard of living of their friends

and family. In addition, Chan-Lizardo adds that the pump fits very well into the

development needs in sub-Saharan Africa right now, as there is a lot of concern

about population growth and adequately feeding the burgeoning populations in this

part of the world. ‘‘Africa is a place where productivity on the farm is very low. You

can easily double or triple the amount produced whereas in the United States this

would be impossible’’ (Chan-Lizardo 2011). In other words, since African farming

processes generally lack the technology and mechanization of those in the United

States, there is significant progress that can be made with just a few small changes.

KickStart’s approach is a response to changing economies as well, both globally

and in Africa. ‘‘Within less than a generation, poor families in Africa have been

thrown from essentially a subsistence lifestyle into a primarily cash-based

economy…[where] money is the primary means to securing other vital resources’’

(Fisher 2006: 9). One primary example is the large number of people in rural Africa

who have recently purchased cell phones, as mobile technology spreads rapidly

across the continent (Tilouine 2011). And for phones and talk time, companies will

not accept bartering of course, only cash. In addition, national laws have changed as

farmers can no longer gather food or building material from local forests, and

consequently are no longer able to feed their families solely with what they produce

on their tiny plots of land. Today, they are forced to purchase tea, coffee, cooking

fuel, clothing, soap, lighting, cosmetics, transport, and communication just like

everyone else in the world, and are being compelled to transition from a subsistence

economy to a cash economy (Fisher 2006). The approach currently undertaken by

KickStart therefore appeals to farmers as well, as during the impact evaluation

interviews farmers responded positively to the pumps effect on their lives, almost

unanimously. The only exceptions were in cases in which the drought did not allow

them to utilize the pump to grow crops, and therefore represented a loss of revenue,

at least for the present.

In their billboards in target counties, KickStart attempts to sway potential pump

buyers with advertisements saying ‘‘Farming is My Business,’’ in an attempt to

show subsistence farmers that they too can be small-scale entrepreneurs. This is

where the KickStart mantra ‘‘income is development’’ comes into play: if farmers

Voluntas

123

can only earn more income, they can pay for the basic needs of their loved ones in

terms of education, health care, or whatever they decide to be their most pressing

concern. By determining the investments in their own future, the poorest in Africa

can take charge of their fate and decide how best to improve their lives. This

approach intends to ‘‘kick-start’’ a sustainable cycle of wealth creation that

‘‘eradicates the effects of poverty from the ground up’’ (Fisher 2006: 9). KickStart

therefore believes that by investing in assets like the MoneyMaker pump, farmers

can generate wealth through supplemental income earned from the crop yield,

allowing them to build capital and accrue additional assets over the long term.

Methods

From June 27, 2011 to August 20, 2011, research was conducted in Kenya and

Tanzania to study the KickStart model of social enterprise and development. A

qualitative approach was applied including: in-depth interviews, focus groups, and

some analyses of the quantitative data from the impact evaluation. In-depth

interviews were conducted with KickStart staff, impact evaluation enumerators,

International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) and Washington University

researchers, and 30 Kenyan and Tanzanian farmers who purchased KickStart

irrigation pumps. Questions were posed along the main themes of:

• What indicators of social development are most important to KickStart and

why?

• What public health and nutrition impacts do they want to associate with pump

ownership?

• How does the social entrepreneurship model affect development paradigms?

• What challenges do they face in making the connection between pump

ownership and public health and nutrition impact?

• How do they intend to use the evidence of the impact evaluation to modify and

redirect their intervention model?

From the Farmer Perspective

Over a 6-week period from July to August 2011, interviews were conducted with 30

farmers who purchased a KickStart pump in rural Kenya and Tanzania. Farmers had

purchased either the Super MoneyMaker treadle pump or the MoneyMaker hip

pump 3–15 months prior to our visit. Out of the 30 farmers interviewed 24

continued to use the pump, the overwhelming majority for crop irrigation; however,

other uses were also recorded. For example, two farmers used the pump to make

bricks for construction, one used it to supply a school with water, another used it for

a church, and two customers purchased the pump explicitly for domestic—or

home—usage. The latter two families were located in northern Tanzania where

running water is extremely rare and the majority of the population relies on well

water. In addition, two households used the pump to supply water for livestock.

These two families were from the Maasai ethnic group which maintains strong

pastoralist traditions tied to cattle-raising. The first Maasai farmer in southern

Voluntas

123

Kenya purchased the pump to extract water from a pond for his 30 cattle and 40

sheep. Out of the 24 farmers continuing to use the pump, 17 reported increasing

crop yields, and by extension, income generation, as a result of the pump. The

second Maasai farmer, in western Kenya, for example, had only purchased a pump

3 months prior to our July visit and had already generated over $150 from sales of

coriander, recouping his original investment as well as a small profit. Like many

others, he described the irrigation system as ‘‘wonderful’’ and hopes to further

progress in the future.

The effects of the pump on these families’ lives were also discussed in depth

during the interviews, as educational and nutrition improvements were often

attributed to increased income derived from pump usage. Six farmers specifically

identified using extra income from farming for school fees and other educational

purposes. ‘‘Through the extra money we’ve earned our children can finally start

going to school,’’ one farmer claims. One couple in western Kenya reported using

extra income to send one of their six young children to private school. There, their

son will have a better chance of learning good English and Swahili on top of the two

tribal languages that the family speaks, they say. Finally, eight families of the 30

interviewed spoke of nutritional benefits as a result of increased income generation

due to the pump. With extra money from produce sales, one family claims they

began to eat more meat, for example. Two other farmers interviewed, in eastern

Kenya, cultivate a verdant valley filled with a wide variety of plants that they would

otherwise not be able to grow without irrigation, such as tomatoes and fruit trees.

They say that the diets of their four children ages 2–12 have improved significantly

since purchasing the pump in 2010. Also, by selling cash crops at the market, the

family can purchase other staples such as meat, butter, and coffee.

However, six of the farmers interviewed had ceased using the pump. While only

one farmer could not use the pump because of a broken valve, the other five farmers

were unable to continue irrigation because of drought. All of these farmers were

located in eastern Kenya where the drought in mid-2011 threatened over 12 million

with starvation in the Horn of Africa, including over four million Kenyans in the

northern and eastern parts of the country. Among these victims are two farmers in

dry eastern Kenya who were forced to buy water delivered by trucks at extremely

high prices in order to continue irrigating their fruit trees. However, others such as

another single farmer nearby could not afford to pay for water, and therefore was

forced to wait for the next rains to come in order to resume any farming activities. In

cases such as these, water levels have dropped too low for the pump to reach, or

wells have simply dried up altogether, leaving the pump to lie idle. External

variables such as the drought will therefore have a significant impact on results in

affected regions.

Social Development Outcomes Valued by KickStart

Income and Poverty

Without exception, when asked what they consider to be the most important

indicator of social development, KickStart executives universally respond with

Voluntas

123

‘‘income.’’ ‘‘Income is where our mission is,’’ says Chan-Lizardo (Chan-Lizardo

2011). Secondarily, KickStart is interested in improvements related to education and

health but these were incorporated more recently, he adds. As a social enterprise,

KickStart does not promote educational or health interventions by themselves;

rather they believe that if people earn more money, improvement in these areas will

follow. In other words, increased income for a poor agricultural family in Africa,

according to KickStart, means that they have more money to spend and are no

longer struggling to survive. KickStart assumes that if people make more money

they will get out of poverty, they will be able to purchase food, clean water, clothes,

health care, education, farm equipment, and simply ‘‘continue to be alive’’ (Fisher

2011). The emphasis on money is derived from what KickStart sees as the

pervasiveness of the cash economy today, even in rural Africa. As even the most

remote corners of Kenya have entered the cash economy, without hard currency

individuals almost anywhere here will be lost. Social enterprises therefore focus

solely on changing economic circumstances through their interventions rather than

social, therefore making money must be the baseline, according to Fisher. ‘‘And if

people take the first steps, they will take further steps up the ladder to make it to the

middle class. Eventually, they will no longer worry about survival but have extra

money to invest in the future’’ (Fisher 2011).

KickStart seems to appreciate steps which outline and differentiate their model

from others. Director of KickStart Nick Moon describes the four characteristics that

a social enterprise must uphold in order to have a chance of making real change:

results must be measurable, cost-effective, sustainable, and replicable. ‘‘These are

the things we should be defining social enterprise as. We need something as

differentiating a certain kind of quality. Otherwise anybody who is doing anything

can be a social entrepreneur’’ (Moon 2011). KickStart therefore works to promote a

certain vision of social enterprise that, while emphasizing a market-based approach

insofar as they want to encourage entrepreneurial activity and self-reliance, relies

more on a set of rigorous principles to which all social enterprises should adhere.

KickStart’s approach is simple at its core, as the organization tries to focus solely

on one vision: to raise incomes. ‘‘We do not get involved in sanitation projects,

public health campaigns, or farmer organizing,’’ Fisher says. ‘‘It is important to

distill a model down to its most simple version’’ (Fisher 2011). KickStart’s goals are

therefore reflected by the workings of their strong, light-weight, and durable pumps:

to increase farm yield, irrigate crops quicker and easier, and allow people to access

water for domestic and animal uses. Yet, the effects of these goals are multiple as

KickStart argues they allow for: independence and food security with a diversified

variety of crops growing year round with increased yield; economic development, as

farmers can sell high value cash crops in the marketplace, creating self-sufficiency

and developing new jobs in rural areas; positive environmental impact as the pumps

utilize water efficiently and do not use fuel or electricity; and contribute to relief

operations and famine prevention as they improve food sources, decrease reliance

on foreign food aid, and are portable and reliable during emergencies (KickStart

International 2010). In addition, KickStart argues that they teach farmers financial

literacy as they offer many of them the opportunity to access credit for the first time.

For example, through KickStart’s Tone Kwa Tone—or ‘‘Drop by Drop,’’ in

Voluntas

123

Swahili—credit extension program, farmers can progressively purchase their pump

with monthly payments over their mobile phone. With all of these factors resulting

in positive effects for African society, Moon argues that national governments

should be supporting such efforts. ‘‘Public money is already channeled toward

private ventures in the West, like for green technology,’’ he says. ‘‘Sub-Saharan

African governments should be diverting money to develop products that are

relevant to the value of time and money in their economies’’ (Moon 2011).

Health, Education, Gender Equality, and Nutrition

In his manifesto for the KickStart model entitled ‘‘Income as Development,’’ Martin

Fisher includes a small section entitled ‘‘Irrigation for Improved Health’’ which

argues that increased incomes will enable families to afford better nutrition and

more preventative and curative health care in the long run (Fisher 2006). However,

access to a reliable water supply, regardless of change in income, has proven

similarly beneficial in terms of health outcomes, decreasing occurrence rates of

many diseases, such as diarrhea and dysentery by 50 %, typhoid fever by 80 %,

salmonella by 40 %, trachoma by 60 %, scabies by 80 %, and skin infections by

50 % (Cairncross and Valdmanis 2006). Having enough water to wash hands after

using a latrine may be the single most important intervention for improving health

in developing countries, Fisher argues, estimating that hand washing alone could

save one million lives per year. Such improved hygiene and sanitation could even

have more of an effect than drinking water quality on health outcomes, reducing

mortality rates and increasing child growth (Fisher 2006). In addition, the pump

arguably not only results in a more diversified diet, but also allows people to

consume higher quality foods. Moon says that pump buyers have overwhelmingly

responded that they can afford to put better food on the table after investing in the

pump. ‘‘There is an immediate nutritional benefit. It is not until you have a full belly

that you can get involved in broader issues,’’ Moon says (Moon 2011). Through the

social enterprise approach, KickStart does not believe they should tell people what

to buy or how to live; rather they believe they should provide them with the tools to

increase their income and improve their lives themselves according to their own

value sets.

Impacts related to education and the empowerment of women are also considered

key, as KickStart has recently begun targeting female pump buyers in its marketing

campaigns. While pump ownership remains relatively low among sole women

owners at the moment—representing under 20 % in Kenya and only 10 % in

Tanzania—KickStart is doing more to bridge this gap (IFPRI 2010). Chan-Lizardo

says that KickStart has begun hiring female sales representatives to work at

KickStart so that women farmers are more comfortable learning about the products.

In addition, since African women spend less time in towns where most KickStart

dealers are located, staff has started traveling to more secluded areas where women

buyers will be targeted. As demonstrations are another key means for disseminating

knowledge about KickStart products, sales teams have begun demonstrating the

product to women’s groups and NGOs that target this population specifically. ‘‘We

are changing our marketing strategy to appeal to more women: instead of using

Voluntas

123

more aspirational messages about income generation that might attract more men,

we crafted messages that talk about food security, providing for your family, and

paying for education’’ (Chan-Lizardo 2011). Also, in addition to baseball caps with

the MoneyMaker logo, the organization now produces kangas—or blanket-like

wraps used as skirts—to give away to potential women buyers.

Finally, according to Impact Monitoring and Evaluation Officer Caleb Mose,

education is a particularly key indicator of development for KickStart as in Kenya,

he argues, many consider development in terms of whether or not people can go to

school. ‘‘Whether or not people generate income is an important indicator if families

can pay for their children’s school fees. When you go out in the field you realize

how many families cannot pay for school because of lack of resources’’ (Mose

2011). Therefore, though education and health may not have been primary interests

of KickStart from the start, they are becoming increasingly prominent as the

organization recognizes the multiplicity of effects the pump has on all facets of the

farmers’ lives.

Social Enterprise Evaluation

Contributions to Development Evidence Base

As an organization, KickStart maintains its own internal monitoring department in

order to measure outcomes on the lives of pump buyers. Yet, while financial

indicators are easy to monitor and assess regarding an organization’s performance,

meeting the social needs addressed by the mission of a social enterprise is argued to

be ‘‘notoriously intangible and difficult to measure’’ (Bagnoli and Megali 2009:

156). Regarding public health impact evaluations, an article by the Center for

Disease Control (CDC) writes that public health and development programs are

called to be accountable to funders, legislators, and the general public. Many

programs do this by creating, monitoring, and reporting results for a small set of

markers and milestones of program progress (CDC 2005). Such ‘‘performance

measures’’ undertaken by an organization are a type of evaluation, answering the

question ‘‘How are we doing?’’ (CDC 2005: 7). The KickStart Impact Monitoring

and Evaluation team has developed a systematic and replicable method of

measuring their impacts where customers are visited within 1 month of purchasing

the MoneyMaker pump—before impacts have been realized—and then again

18 months afterward to measure the outcome (Fisher 2006). A few farmers are even

visited a third time 18 months later, measuring the pump’s impact over a 3-year

period. For these evaluations a statistically valid sample of 50–60 pump buyers per

year is chosen randomly from the database. ‘‘We do internal monitoring because

frankly if we are not doing any good, we should all go home’’ (Fisher 2011). Chan-

Lizardo and Moon corroborate this point of view. However, impact evaluations such

as those done by the KickStart internal monitoring staff, which look at simple

before-and-after pictures, capture only the surface-level effects. Over the last

several years donors have been putting increased pressure on KickStart to produce

an independent impact evaluation. With grants from the Gates Foundation, 3ie, and

Voluntas

123

Voxtra, KickStart launched a 3-year longitudinal evaluation during the summer of

2010. The first cohort included 1,264 farmers—614 in Kenya and 650 in

Tanzania—with a 6-month follow-up taking anthropometric measurements of

children under five in 237 households.

The study entitled ‘‘Monitoring and Assessing the Impacts of KickStart’s Low-

Cost Farm Equipment on Poverty Reduction’’ will measure and analyze impacts of

the MoneyMaker pumps on the following key poverty indicators: (1) household

income and asset acquisition, (2) education of girls and boys, (3) health and

nutrition, (4) child health including anthropometric measures such as weight, height,

nutrition, morbidity, and illness, (5) gender, and (6) constraints to pump acquisition,

and production and marketing of irrigated crops (IFPRI 2010). With year one results

already presented by Washington University and IFPRI at two international

conferences, knowledge of KickStart and its social impact has begun to spread

beyond the organization and its donors.

However, many researchers insist that the gold-standard for impact evaluation

studies is the randomized-control trial (RCT) in which randomized treatment groups

are compared with control groups devoid of the variable being measured. The lack

of a true control group in the IFPRI/Washington University study categorizes it as a

quasi-experimental design which, some would argue, takes away the study’s

legitimacy to a limited degree. Nevertheless, KickStart considers that an RCT

design would have been unable to capture its true social impact as comparing a

KickStart pump buyer with an African farmer who did not purchase a MoneyMaker

pump would be impossible. ‘‘KickStart is selling a product, and the people who buy

the product are different,’’ Fisher argues. ‘‘Something about them has decided to

buy a pump. So there is no comparison with a control group of people who did not

buy the pump. You would need a control group of similarly entrepreneurial people

where the only difference is that they did not buy the pump’’ (Fisher 2011).

According to this logic, the social enterprise model whereby customers are self-

selecting and not chosen by the organization, eliminates the possibility for a true

control group. However, development through a social enterprise approach would

thereby only target some through its development initiatives as opposed to all

people.

The profit motive is another influential factor as Chan-Lizardo points out that

KickStart’s interest in the study is partly motivated by their search to find more

ways to be more sustainable in terms of cost recovery. ‘‘Right now we sell 30,000

pumps per year, but if we sell a million per year, making about $10 per pump, that is

better for KickStart in terms of economies of scale’’ (Chan-Lizardo 2011). The

influence of KickStart’s market-based approach alters what it looks for in terms of

impact monitoring. While most non-profit organizations concentrate solely on an

examination of the impact they are having directly through their operations,

KickStart and other social enterprises have additional motivations. Moon says that

marketing is a big factor for KickStart that will be analyzed with the impact

evaluation results. In particular, KickStart wants to find out how to more quickly

and efficiently build awareness and create demand for its products (Moon 2011).

Though these motivations should not necessarily have an impact on the study design

or the results produced by impact evaluation, KickStart maintains a say in how the

Voluntas

123

study is produced and conducted, and ultimately it won the debate on whether or not

a control group should be included. Arguably, this final decision to exclude the

control group could have an impact on the final results, as external variables might

skew the outcomes one way or another. Yet, Fisher brushes off such claims arguing

that KickStart is looking for changes so large, no external variable would be able to

affect them sufficiently: ‘‘We are looking for big changes, step function changes. If

income increases by a factor of two or three, it is unlikely that the pump was not

involved in such drastic changes’’ (Fisher 2011).

Public Health and Nutrition Impacts of Irrigation Pumps

From June to August 2011, impact evaluation teams interviewed farmers for the

second year of the study throughout rural Kenya and Tanzania. This provided an

opportunity to witness first-hand the myriad of positive effects that the pump has

had, and to discuss these with the farmers themselves. Overall, of the 30 farmers

visited during the evaluation, none had disparaging remarks about the pump itself.

One farmer near the town of Kisii in western Kenya said the pump has helped her so

much she now employs five women to work for her, adding that the pump has

provided her with unparalleled independence (Wambui 2011). KickStart argues that

their product is not the pump, but rather a successful, rural family enterprise, in the

sense that income generated from crop irrigation and other pump-related activities

allows farmers to radically alter the trajectory of the lives in a wide variety of ways

(Moon Moon and 2011). With a collection of over 200 questions for each farmer,

KickStart is interested in public health impacts ranging from nutrition, food

consumption, sanitation, water management, as well as access to basic health care.

The pathways for health and nutrition seen in Fig. 2 analyze the relationship

between the pump and multiple other factors, including food and agricultural

production, domestic water supply, and water management, all tying into the

outcome of overall improved health and nutrition. Though there are not many

conclusions to be drawn from the year one study results, KickStart’s Director of

Impact Evaluation and Monitoring, Beatrice Sakwa, says that the baseline data has

given KickStart a good idea of what their farmers are like, as well as what potential

exists for positive developments in the coming years. ‘‘One thing I found interesting

was our farmers in Tanzania are much poorer than the average household of

Tanzanians. Next year we will be able to measure the impact again, so we can find

out if they have surpassed the average per capita income’’ (Sakwa 2011). Other

results show that there is significant room for progress to be made in terms of health

and nutrition, as 46.5 % of farmers interviewed last year did not treat their drinking

water. With increased income generated through the pump, KickStart hopes that

these numbers will decrease in the coming 2 years. On other fronts, positive results

are already evident. During the 6 month follow-up last year, 29.7 % of farmers

interviewed reported using the pump for domestic water purposes. Whereas today

they use the pump to get water, the vast majority of this 29.7 % were previously

using buckets and ropes or other time-consuming methods. In northern Tanzania

near the town of Arusha, where many people do not have access to running water of

any sort, evaluation supervisor Monica Minjakitilya argued that roughly 60 % of

Voluntas

123

pump buyers in that area use the MoneyMaker for domestic water purposes. As

women are responsible for over 80 % of water collection, this also contributes to

increased gender equity in the household. Tanzanian farmer Enigenja Kaaya says

that not only is she able to use the pump to water the animals and do the laundry, but

it also serves for cleaning the house and bathing saving her significant amounts of

time (Kaaya 2011).

Lastly, the impact evaluation is focusing heavily on food consumption as

enumerators inquire as to what the farmer and his or her family consumed over the

previous week. Particular attention is paid to children under five, as they are the

most at risk for malnutrition and its irreversible consequences. Anthropometric

measurements are taken to determine the weight and height of each child under five,

recording changes over the 3-year period. Improvement is also expected here, as

almost 50 % of all children in Tanzania surveyed were reported to be stunted—or

too short for their age—in year one results. Mose says that paying close attention to

children under five is one of the most vital indicators of family nutrition. ‘‘Diet for

small kids is key because many times families are not able to feed the youngest

members of the family, or they feed them the same thing over and over’’ (Mose

2011).

Application of Evaluation Findings to Modify KickStart Model

Today, evaluation results are increasingly being used to make decisions about the

future of programs, as in the past evaluations only had limited instrumental use with

Fig. 2 KickStart irrigation pump effects on health: leveraging agriculture to improve nutrition and health

Voluntas

123

little effect on actual policies and programming (Habicht et al. 1999: 10). Indeed,

KickStart was interested in an independent impact evaluation due to its increasingly

important status for development organizations—consuming upwards of 10 % of

the KickStart annual budget alone—and the conclusions of the study, they say, will

direct the future of their work considerably. ‘‘KickStart has a unique model. Many

development organizations give away products, but at KickStart we believe that the

solution is more about allowing the farmers to build their own lives. We need to see

external proof that this model works’’ (Sakwa 2011). Chan-Lizardo would like this

study to hold up KickStart as a model for other social enterprises, arguing that if the

result reflects a cost-effective model which helps people get out of poverty, ‘‘then

clearly we want to show other organizations that this is a good way to move forward

in the field of international development’’ (Chan-Lizardo 2011).

Though KickStart has aspirations for impacting the field of social enterprise and

development more broadly, most of the impact of the study will affect operations

internally. ‘‘What is powerful about [the study’s] information is it will help us

develop a much deeper profile about what our farmers look like: what are the

barriers, what are their problems. This will help us develop better products or fine

tune our message, such as how we talk to the farmers. We want to really understand

what it is that makes people make decisions regarding education, money, and

health’’ (Chan-Lizardo 2011). Fisher corroborates these priorities, adding that he

places importance on market intelligence research, donor fundraising, and

marketing as the most significant potential outcomes of the study for KickStart.

The social enterprise model, therefore, comes to the forefront here, as the

organization desires to see change as a direct result of income raised from the pump

and not from supplementary interventions. ‘‘What we are going to find out is if we

get big health improvements without doing work on behavioral changes, like public

health suggestions sold with the pump for example. My hope is that people with the

pump will get more money and then slightly upgrade the toilet or things like that’’

(Fisher 2011). In the event that the study does not come to such conclusions

however, the organization remains flexible. Moon says that while he does not

believe the results will conclude that KickStart’s model is ineffective in tackling

poverty, they must be open to all possibilities: ‘‘If we learn we are not effective we

need to think of another way, back to the drawing board’’ (Moon 2011). After the

second year of surveying comes to an end in December 2011, comparisons with the

first year results can begin to be analyzed, allowing KickStart to begin an

assessment of its impact and social enterprise model both for the present and the

future of the organization.

Concluding Discussion

All member states of the United Nations are striving to meet the Millennium

Development Goals by 2015, among them eradicating extreme poverty, reducing

child mortality rates, fighting epidemics, and developing global partnerships (Seelos

et al. 2006). The UN report does not provide any specific blueprint for achieving

these goals, as they recognize that different solutions will be found based on

Voluntas

123

systems that differ widely among cultures and countries, only stipulating that

sustainable development should be privileged (Brundtland 1987). Products sold by

KickStart currently have the potential to directly impact three of the UN’s

Millennium Development Goals, proving that regardless of the small place profit

has in the organization, it continues to effectively prioritize essential social goals

established by international bodies. Scholars of social enterprise argue that this type

of organization has an advantage over others in the field of development, as they are

able to discover unique solutions within local contexts which contribute to

development, both social and economic, and can also adapt to and in some cases

change institutionalized behavior (Seelos et al. 2006).

However, there are limitations for social enterprises that will likely determine the

future for this organizational type in development. First, and most importantly, is

the issue of remaining economically viable. KickStart, as with other social

enterprises, has struggled to generate sufficient revenue through their business

activities and often resort to soft money, or grant sources to offset the deficits. Social

enterprises must therefore either find highly profitable commercial niches with

significant social impact, or be satisfied with diversified revenue generating

portfolios, including grants and donations. ‘‘There are a lot of companies that are

trying to be profitable, like with green energy; but if you are actually a business

trying to help poor people, then it is a lot more difficult to try and be profitable’’

(Moon 2011). Moon’s point expresses the tension between corporate responsibility

and social enterprise, where the former acts out of charity and the latter exists to

achieve a social change.

Another limitation to social enterprise may be its limited capacity to remain

profitable in humanitarian relief context. ‘‘Obviously, a social enterprise like

KickStart is not a relief organization so we will not do direct humanitarian

interventions. But we can talk to some of these relief organizations and see if they

can use some of our products’’ (Chan-Lizardo 2011). As the 2011 drought was

raging in the Horn of Africa, agencies like the Red Cross were importing massive

food aid to victims. As people in situations such as this are in dire need of food and

water for basic survival, social enterprise will most likely never be able to venture

into this realm as the profit motive is non-existent. This reflects a certain division of

labor emerging in development in which the profit motive divides organizations into

two camps: ‘‘KickStart can introduce the profit motive into selling to poor farmers,

but something like what the Red Cross does in terms of providing food relief in

famine zones could never be profitable. Those people do not have any money’’

(Chan-Lizardo 2011).

This issue is similar to the question raised in the impact evaluation about whether in

fact KickStart is actually reaching the most vulnerable populations. The social impact

motive, therefore, may not overcome the lure of the profit motive or need to remain

economically viable. This may move many social enterprises in the direction of

standard commercial operations in the future, or in the very least, prevent them from

reaching those most in need of aid. Critic of social enterprise, Paola Grenier writes:

In fact, it seems more likely that social entrepreneurship will be increasingly

associated with what could be termed ethical economic activity, where social

Voluntas

123

and economic goals are pursued simultaneously. While there is a value in this

and greater development is needed to understand better the complex

relationships between economic and social well-being, it is different from

those who are trying to change social and cultural practices in society, and are

not necessarily invoking the economic. The call that is being made by those

who are marginalized from the benefits of globalization is for something

different rather than more of the same (Grenier 2008: pp. 139–140).

The need for development through social progress is vital in the current

environment of the global market economy, and social enterprise has a chance to

represent a valuable asset in this effort. If KickStart and others in the social

enterprise field can uphold their noble goals for social impact while sustaining the

necessary resources to keep the organization viable, there is potential for important

contributions to development in the future.

References

Bagnoli, L., & Megali, C. (2009). Measuring performance in social enterprises. Nonprofit and Voluntary

Sector Quarterly, 40(1), 149–165.

Bornstein, D., & Davis, S. (2010). Social entrepreneurship: What everyone needs to know. Oxford:

Oxford University Press.

Brundtland, G. H. (1987). Our common future: The World Commission on environment and development.

Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Cairncross, S., & Valdmanis, V. (2006). Water supply, sanitation, and hygiene promotion. In D.

T. Jamison, J. G. Breman, A. R. Measham, et al. (Eds.), Disease control priorities in developing

countries (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: World Bank.

Center for Disease Control (CDC). (2005). Introduction to program evaluation for public health

programs: A self-study guide. Atlanta, GA: US Department of Health and Human Services.

Chan-Lizardo. (Ed.). (2011, July 19). KickStart Chief Operating Officer [Interview].

Fisher, M. (2006). Income as development: KickStart’s pumps help Kenyan farmers transition to a cash

economy. Innovations: Technology, Governance, Globalization, 1, 9–30.

Fisher, M. (2011, July 16). KickStart CEO and co-founder [Interview].

Grenier, P. (2008). Social entrepreneurship: Agency in a globalizing world. In A. Nicholls (Ed.), Social

entrepreneurship: New models of sustainable social change. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Habicht, J. P., Victora, C. G., & Vaughan, J. P. (1999). Evaluation designs for adequacy, plausibility and

probability of public health programme performance and impact. International Journal of

Epidemiology, 28, 10–18.

International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI). (2010). Monitoring and assessing the impacts of

KickStart’s low cost farm equipment on poverty reduction in Africa. Unpublished report of IFPRI,

Nairobi, Kenya (15 June).

Kaaya, E. (2011, August 6). Tanzanian farmer and study participant [Interview].

Kerlin, J. A. (2010). A comparative analysis of the global emergence of social enterprise. Voluntas:

International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 21, 162–179.

KickStart International. (2010). MoneyMaker irrigation pumps: Helping small scale farmers out of

poverty. Unpublished report of KickStart impacts, Nairobi, Kenya (10 June 2013).

KickStart International. (2013). Accessed June 10, 2013, from www.KickStart.org.

Light, P. (2009). Social entrepreneurship and the future of nonprofits. [Videorecording]. Recorded at

George Warren Brown School of Social Work, Washington University in St. Louis. Speaker, Paul

Charles Light.

Mair, J. (2006). Social entrepreneurship. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Moon, N. (2011, July 29). KickStart Director and co-founder [Interview].

Voluntas

123

Mose, C. (2011, July 7). KickStart impact evaluation and monitoring officer [Interview].

Nicholls, A. (2008). Social entrepreneurship: New models of sustainable social change. Oxford: Oxford

University Press.

Patel, R. (2008). Stuffed and starved. New York: Melville House.

Sakwa, B. (2011, August 16). KickStart Director of impact evaluation and monitoring [Interview].

Seelos, C., Ganly, K., & Mair, J. (2006). Social entrepreneurs directly contribute to global development

goals. In J. Mair, J. Robinson, & K. Hockerts (Eds.), Social entrepreneurship. New York: Palgrave

Macmillan.

Social Enterprise Alliance (SEA). (2013). What is social enterprise? Accessed June 10, 2013, form

https://www.se-alliance.org/what-is-social-enterprise.

Tilouine, J. (2011). La revolution mobile en Afrique (Mobile Revolution in Africa). Radio France

International (RFI). Accessed August 15, 2011, from http://www.rfi.fr/afrique/20110815-revolution-

mobile-afrique?ns_campaign=editorial&ns_mchannel=reseaux_sociaux&ns_source=FB&ns_link

name=20110815_revolution_mobile_afrique&ns_fee=0.

United Nations World Food Programme. (2011). Food for assets, UNWFP our work. Accessed June 10,

2013, form http://www.wfp.org/food-assets.

Wambui, A. (2011, July 9). Kenyan farmer and study participant [Interview].

Yunus, M. (2008). Social business entrepreneurs are the solution. In A. Nicholls (Ed.), Social

entrepreneurship: New models of sustainable social change. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Voluntas

123