Social Entrepreneurship in Brazilian Civil Society

GISELA SOLYMOS

Jones, Emily Suzanne

PHST-P 301: Historical Contexts for Contemp. Approaches to Philanthropy
December 2017
 Jones 2

In the context of a civil society characterized by recent autonomy from the state and the

Catholic Church, Brazil’s third sector is growing in an unprecedented manner. With a dramatic

increase in civil rights and environmental nonprofit organizations in the last forty years, pivotal

issues in society such as health, education, and research have taken a back seat. Fortunately,

there are social entrepreneurs and innovators working to correct this detriment. Gisela Maria

Bernades Solymos is a Brazilian social entrepreneur that is utilizing federal funding, a vast array

of social networks, and brand new innovations in nutrition and research, impacting the favelas

of Brazil, and “nourishing the dreams of thousands” (Schwabfound.org).

Civil Society in Brazil

Civil society is a difficult term to define, no matter the country in question. Just as civil

society is a contested concept in the United States, so it is in Brazil. Helmut Anheier (2005)

defined civil society as a “sphere of ideas, values, institutions, organizations, networks, and

individuals located between the family, the state, and the market,” claiming it as a sort of

modern day “buffer zone”, keeping both government and business entities in check (p. 57).

Bruce Sievers (2010) similarly coined civil society the ability to balance private tendencies,

individualist ideas, and public propensities (p. xvi). Sievers along with other contemporary

theorists identified seven elements of historical development and ideas that compile what they

believe to be civil society: philanthropy, the common good, rule of law, private associations,

individual rights, a system of free expression and tolerance (pp. 4-7). Leilah Landim and Andrés

Thompson further stated that non-governmental or nonprofit organizations in Latin America

are “institutions shaped by the social, historical, and cultural backgrounds of their countries of
 Jones 3

origin” (Leilah, 1997, p. 337). For the purposes of this essay, I will be using the framework of

American civil society as put forth by both Anheier and Sievers to more fully understand civil

society in the democratized nation of Brazil.

Brazil gained its independence from Portugal in September 1822. The country was

originally constituted based on a slave economy, as a centralized state with the Catholic Church

as a key legitimizing force. Therefore the state, above all else, was responsible for the

“creation” of society. Brazilian citizens were arranged into groups in an economic hierarchy and

federal interventions were swift to destroy attempts for autonomy and participatory society.

Though voluntary action has been a common theme through Latin American history since

colonial times, until the nineteenth century civil society in Brazil was ruled by the Catholic

Church (Landim, p. 339). The process of political independence began in 1822, however

freedom was not possible for all until the abolition of slavery in 1888. Even then, symbiosis

between the Catholic Church and the patriarchy existed until the end of the nineteenth

century. This partnership did not foster but discouraged the formation of voluntary

organizations and associations that could mobilize to make change (Landim, 1997). Finally, in

1989, the constitution gave municipals a critical role in delivering services and promoting

participatory democracy; today, the degree of responsibility, authority, and resources granted

to the Brazilian municipals is unsurpassed in the developing world (Baiocchi, 2008, p. 912).

In this sense, Brazil’s civil society is still quite young—at least quite a bit younger than

that of the United States. Like the United States, however, the concept of civil society is

contested and has been granted a many number of different names and designations within

society. In Brazil, civil societies or nonprofit organizations are private organizations that are
 Jones 4

non-commercial in behavior and objectives; this is the most neutral term for Brazilians (Landim,

p. 355). An association frequently suggests opposition to the state, with more formal

requirements of membership and contracts, organized based on common activities or defense

of common interests. Philanthropic, beneficent, or charity-related organizations on the other

hand have no difficulty cooperating with the state and tend to be linked to the church with

values of neighborly love, charity, and generosity. These are oriented towards clients,

recipients, and third parties which require social assistance (Landim, p. 356). Non-government

organizations or NGOs have emerged in Brazil in the last forty years; they grew out of social

movements in the 1970s and share privileged relations with major institutions. Lastly,

foundations are those favored by corporate philanthropy, as they are legally constituted. Today,

foundations make up six percent of Brazil’s nonprofit organizations (Landim, p. 357).

As was mentioned before, Brazil’s civil society is young in comparison to the United

States and other developed countries; it is also considered much weaker. The cooperation of

the state and the Catholic Church for hundreds of years and the prolonged maintenance of a

centralized, authoritarian patriarchy produced a very weak civil society, one of which has only

come into full fruition within the last half-century (Salamon, 1999, p. 398). As a result, the

modern day nonprofit organization in Brazil is mostly small, with fewer than ten paid staff and

an annual budget of around $30,000 (Landim, 1997, p. 357). There are some larger and more

comprehensive, though this is not the norm. Much like the United States’, the sector in which

these organizations are located is heterogeneous and highly differentiated with leadership

ranging from a local level of involvement to broader international contacts; they may be highly

formalized or remain unregistered altogether (Landim, p. 358).

 Jones 5

In the last forty years, Brazil has seen a significant increase in civil rights and

environmental organizations to the detriment of religion, health, education and research, and

sports and recreation associations. This increase in civil rights and environmental mobilization is

due to an outstanding role in democratization of Brazilian politics, bringing forth new issues,

subject matters, and forms of representation and political activity. This is not necessarily a bad

thing. Brazil is moving in the direction of authentic democracy and civil rights are key to this

endeavor; however, it is putting a strain on other important values in the reform of civil

society—requiring the action of the federal government to intervene and calling for innovation

in each respective field. Perhaps one of the greatest of these is health.

In Brazil, one in every eight children suffers from malnutrition, with numbers

significantly higher in more specific, impoverished slums called favelas (CREN.org). An

anonymous article in the Bulletin of the World Health Organization in 2003 stated Brazil’s high

rates of malnutrition: “while the average portion of undernourished children is estimated to be

about 10% for the country as a whole, in slums and other poor areas in the interior of north-

eastern Brazil it is between 40% and 60%” (Anonymous, p. 230). Here, it is important to

distinguish between hunger and malnutrition; the fact that a child is fed does not necessarily

mean that he/she is receiving the proper nutrients to grow properly and stay healthy through

adulthood. In fact, the roots of malnutrition stem from other factors such as parental

unemployment, inadequate social networks, poor education, pitiable housing and living

standards, limited access to healthcare, and unhealthy eating habits of the family. The entire

family is affected by malnutrition and cannot simply be addressed by boosting caregiver

incomes or supplying nutrient-rich food (Ashoka.org). Gisela Solymos understood the deep
 Jones 6

roots of this complex issue, and being the social entrepreneur she is—decided to do something

about it.

Social Entrepreneurship & Gisela Solymos

Bill Drayton, founder of Ashoka, famously stated “social entrepreneurs are not content

to just give a fish, or teach how to fish. They will not rest until they have revolutionized the

fishing industry” (Hatcher, Week 15). Social entrepreneurship, according to Martin and Osberg

(2007) has three components: identifying an unjust equilibrium, identifying an opportunity in

this unjust equilibrium, and forging a new, stable equilibrium ensuring a better future for

society at large (Hatcher, Week 15). Bill Drayton broke down the question of whether someone

should be considered a social entrepreneur into four categories: creativity, entrepreneurial

quality, social impact of the idea, and ethical fiber (Bornstein, 2007, p. 121). Drayton must have

decided that Gisela Solymos fit his criteria; she became an Ashoka fellow in 2012 for her work in

Brazil as a social entrepreneur tackling poverty and malnutrition, though she was previously

recognized as a Schwab Foundation Social Entrepreneur the year before.

Gisela Maria Bernades Solymos was born the daughter of a Hungarian father and

Brazilian mother. She has been quoted saying that she inherited her father’s desire for

“achieving the infinite” (Ashoka.org). Since she was a child she craved to learn about the world

around her and the people within it. As a teenager, she joined a group of young people working

in a favela and upon realizing the deplorable circumstances the impoverished faced, decided to

pursue psychology. She graduated with her bachelor’s degree in 1987 and obtained her

Masters in School Psychology and Human Development from the University of Sao Paolo. After
 Jones 7

graduation, Solymos became fascinated with children with learning disabilities; she gave private

lessons and eventually opened a private clinic to treat them. This was short-lived, however, due

to financial crisis and Solymos had to close her office and discontinue her work. She then

became a field researcher in the favelas of Brazil (Ashoka.org).

It was during her time as a field researcher in the Vila Mariana Favela, surveying the

socioeconomic and nutritional conditions of residents, that Solymos and the rest of her

research team developed a new methodology. As a kind of health intervention in the

community, Solymos and her research team went from house to house questioning families on

their healthcare needs. This ranged anywhere from emergency care to prenatal care to

everyday activities such as breastfeeding and nutrition. It was this service in the community and

her immense sensitivity to the conditions of those in the favelas and the issue of poverty that

inspired her to launch the Centre for Nutritional Recovery and Education (Ashoka.org). Since

then, she has acquired her doctorate in Psychiatry and Medical Psychology through the Federal

University of Sao Paolo or Unifesp (Schwabfound.org).

The Centre for Nutritional Recovery and Education

The Centre for Nutritional Recovery and Education (CREN) was established by Solymos

in 1992 (Schwabfound.org). The center has pioneered new methods for tackling malnutrition

and has become an international reference in nutritional education and the treatment of

primary nutritional disorders (CREN.org). Rather than approaching the problem of malnutrition

through hospitalization or strictly clinical services, CREN seeks to address the problem through

a holistic education method which entails conventional examinations, but then engages a
 Jones 8

child’s entire family in the treatment process through home visits and training workshops

(Schwabfound.org). Gisela Solymos understands through her many years of experience in the

favelas of Brazil and her work in psychology that the solution to an elaborate problem like

nutrition cannot be predicated solely on the increase of a family’s income or a family’s access to

food; suffering due to poverty is just one of many elements.

The center utilizes a tripartite approach consisting of community outreach, outpatient

care, and a semi-boarding day hospital with the assistance of the federal Family Health

Program. In fact, governmental partnerships made up 77% of CREN’s funding in 2015. This state

involvement is key in understanding where the need for nutritional education comes into

Brazil’s civil society and overall values as a nation on the macro level. Due to the increased

interest in civil rights and environmental issues, Brazilians as individuals are donating less to

organizations like Solymos’. Donations only make up another 8% of revenue, and special

projects constitute the last 15%. The organization also works through a partnership with the

Federal University of Sao Paolo, though it is considered an independent entity from Unifesp

(CREN.org).

Impact

“At CREN, the impact surpasses the reversal of clinical symptoms. The individual’s

condition changes, their surroundings and their attitude [towards] life are objects of

transformation” (CREN.org). Since its establishment in Sao Paolo in 1992, the Centre for

Nutritional Recovery and Education has had an impressive record of success and impact,

including but not limited to: 132,000 children treated, 1.445 million meals served, 33,000
 Jones 9

parents and professionals trained, 8,620 home visits, and a whopping 3.29 million people have

benefited directly or indirectly from CREN programs (CREN.org).

In January 2003, new Brazilian President Luís Inácio Lula de Silva announced his Zero

Hunger initiative which included Gisela Solymos’ work at the Centre for Nutritional Recovery

and Education (Anonymous). In the anonymous article, Solymos is quoted having identified

health problems caused or made more severe by child malnutrition and pointed out that lack of

appropriate treatment can lead to chronic degenerative diseases in adulthood (p. 230).

Knowing that the Brazilian President of the time was consulting with Solymos, among other

health professionals, speaks to her presence in the field of nutritional recovery research and

education as a resource and an innovator.

In conclusion, Brazil’s third sector, though initially stunted by a partnership between the

state and the Catholic Church, is growing in an unprecedented manner concerning many issues.

The greatest increase, however, has been in civil rights and environmental organizations most

recently, which is proving to the detriment of funding by individual donors of health, education,

and research. Fortunately, the state is stepping in and innovators within the social sector are

working to correct this injustice. Gisela Maria Bernades Solymos is one such social entrepreneur

that is using her creativity, entrepreneurial quality, and ethical fiber to impact Brazil and its

problem of malnutrition in abundant ways.

References

Anheier, H. K. (2005). Nonprofit organizations: Theory, management, policy. Routledge: London.

 Jones 10

Anonymous. (2003). Brazil mobilizes for a war to save lives. Bulletin of the World Health

Organization, 81(3), 229-230. Retrieved from ProQuest.

Baiocchi, G., Heller, P., & Silva, M. K. (2008). Making space for civil society: Institutional reforms

and local democracy in brazil. Social Forces, 86(3), 911-936. Retrieved from http://ulib.

iupui.edu/cgi-bin/proxy.pl?url=http://search-proquest-com.proxy.ulib.uits.iu.edu/

docview/229893056?accountid=7398

Bornstein, D. (2007). Are they possessed, really possessed, by an idea?. In D. Bornstein (Eds.),

How to change the world: Social entrepreneurs and the power of new ideas (pp. 120-

129). New York: Oxford University Press.

Hatcher, J. (2017). Week 15. PowerPoint presentation.

Landim, L. (1997). NGOs and philanthropy in Latin America: the Brazilian case. Voluntas. 8(4):

351-370. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02354208

Landim, L. & Thompson, A. (1997). Non-governmental organizations and philanthropy in Latin

America: an overview. Voluntas, 8(4): 337-350. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02354207

Salamon, L. et al. (1999). Global Civil Society: Dimensions of the Nonprofit Sector (pp. 393-410).

Baltimore, Maryland: The Johns Hopkins Center for Civil Society Studies.

Sievers, B. R. (2010). Civil society, philanthropy, and the fate of the commons. Medford, MA:

Tufts University Press. ISBN 978-1-58465-895-5.

Autonomy