That’s great. We were just going through the slides. Thanks for providing slides. We made copious annotations on it, and it’s been very fruitful.

Yeah.

Yeah, and I just published it on YouTube.

Cheers. Bye.

OK. Cool.

It’s more than an hour now. Thank you. I’ll publish the recording, if it’s OK with you, of everything.

OK. Cool. Thank you for your time.

That’s great. That’s great. I hope I can help in whichever way. It looks like you’ve got this local network as well as your government networks really connected at this point. I will just see how I can help.

Cool. We’re at the last slide.

I see. More like organic farming labels and things like that.

This is more about the form of governance, not the product or services, which is more like the peer network guaranteed way that you just mentioned.

Completely agreed. That’s great. That’s great. The quality assurance standards refer not just to the governance or the business model, but the whole thing, right, the services they provide, and so on?

We sit here, in the capital city in Taipei, and force, through market and policies, all the social enterprise to look exactly the same as, at some point, South Korea did. Then we will get very good solutions to certain issues or problems. But we’ll never discover any other issues ...

There were four or five of them, and every region really grows very differently. The more we delegate the community building into the local ecosystem, the more variety we would get as a result because the social problems and the social issues in every city is really different.

Personally, I’m traveling with all the different ministries and agency in Taiwan, engaging with social enterprise, which may be seven or eight different ministries, every two weeks to one of the regional social enterprise clusters or centers.

Exactly.

You are scaling out yourselves, basically?

Exactly.

Wow.

What kind of IP are you looking at when you were saying transferring IP to proponents?

This does lower the risk of any individual participation agency over the course of three years. That really helps. This, I’ve got most of the factual information.

I see. This is very clear. There is more transient victory than it being snatched for this plan, not knowing anything about your political situation.

Ah, OK, so it is a theoretically PM-intervened structure.

That sounds great, but why would the ministries devote this much resources if they don’t have control over the process?

I take it to mean that you will send monthly or quarterly via the feedback cycle and review the goals just like a traditional agile development...?

Are you still including career public servants in the dialogues and in the process and in designs?

As an anarchist, I completely agree. Also, I think it makes sense for the government, while it still exists, to endorse this kind of external-sector development. When it owns or as you said, convenes, it does lose credibility without very strong leadership. It’s the national agenda, perhaps, but it’s not ...

That’s exactly right.

Yes. Exactly.

There are pretty good effects in each of the ministries. There is very little horizontal coordination after the transition of the ministry with a portfolio from Yin in the previous cabinet. Every year this plan keeps running, but none of the ministries know what the other ministries are doing.

That’s great. That’s great. I’m glad that it’s a focused external sector. Around three years ago, Taiwan passed a three-year plan on social enterprise development, roughly exactly the same amount of money. It was channeled through various different ministries.

That’s the amplified impact effect that you were just referring to.

It’s an external partner acting to interface with governments.

And enabling policy. This investment is entirely going to the social enterprise sector, but in the form of various different ministries?

This is addressing barrier seven, uncoordinated government action.

That’s right.

I see. Because you’ve talked about consultation, I understand the statement and, more broadly speaking, this year’s governmental action plan there is a 500 million NZ dollars or something like that input. Is that over a year or over more periods?

It’s more like this is a growing sector and it has grown exceeding Akina’s ability to provide services.

Right, but this line is basically saying there are more than 700 organizations needing Akina’s services. Right?

Right. The "we" here refers to Akina, right?

Sure.

OK. Cool. I will be sure to attend as much as I can. We are just working on the traditional justice with indigenous people here also. They are also voicing that none of the SDGs are indigenous-generated. They really need to be nativized in a way, in their respective cultures. ...

I see in your agenda design and also actually in the events that I attended in New Zealand, there are a lot of dedicated space, dedicated rituals I would say even and dedicated conversations with the subjects of Maori worldview, not just people. How does it tie into social enterprise?

Certainly, they wouldn’t say rangatiratanga.

The other ones are pretty commonplace. The circular economy is getting a lot of attention right now. Is there anything you would like to say?

Right. Again, a data-driven justification, not just to the value, but also to the policies around that value. Thank you. That’s very, very powerful.

Right. Accountability, in this sense, is more of a publicly auditable value alignment than the traditional way of answering every inquiry from a parliament member and things like that.

Thank you. That’s extremely clear. If it’s transparent and accountable in some way, then there will be less criticisms of people saying it’s just justifying. Also, people will see then those organizations’ mission is actually aligned with the government’s mission when doing this kind of procurement.

That’s right. That’s right.

We are actually considering that at this very moment.