The final part of the model described in the last two inputs deals with the contribution of the NGOs that help set up and support SRGs, in this case WEvolution.
This is the most underdeveloped of the three parts of the model. After it was written, a study tour to India, the birthplace of the SRG movement, made us think much more about the NGO contribution. None of that thinking is included in this note.
Still there are some things we can say. In the way we were thinking about it, summarised in the following diagram, it is the movement an organisation like WEvolution that makes the difference.
15. Groups cohere, and then they struggle. WEvolution encourages them to persist. 16. The women see themselves as part of the SRG family and gather together with their extended group once or twice a year. 17. The women have a financial stake in their SRG and a legal stake in WEvolution. 18. The women are exposed to business ideas, enterprise, training, workshops, skill and knowledge. (The women say that when they are learning they feel engaged and when they are not they can feel disengaged). 19. WEvolution provides hubs, places for shared enterprise and innovation. These are places where social capital is assembled. 20. The women listen to the stories of SRG family members and reflect on their own potential. 21. These stories become the social capital of the movement.
There is something a bit clunky in this description. WEvolution is promoting a movement, but it is a charity, an organisation, with fiduciary responsibilities. There are other NGOs in England, Wales and Netherlands taking some if not all of the WEvolution roles.
The description puts the power in the hands of the women. The reality may be different.