There are plenty of social problems need to think about in each country. For example, how to find a good place to help homeless people, how to reduce pollution and how to improve medical services. These problems are generally solved by the United Nations, but an increasing number of people are start to work on these problems and introduce new process to solve them completely.
Some people think because we could have a fully funded United Naions so the social entrepreneurs are not necessary in each country. I do not agree with this opinion because the United Naions can only use money to solve these social problems. An entrepreneur can teach people how to solve these problems by themselves, which mean in the future people in the area such as Africa and South America can improve the theirliving standard by themselves but not by receiving donation from other countries.
I think the difference between social and the United Nations is that social entrepreneurs are more likely to teach people a way to solve problems but the United Nations only gives them money and help them solve problems. This is really similar to have a lunch. A social entrepreneur will teach people how to cook, but the United Nations only gives people food.
In a long run, teaching people a method is obviously much better than just providing them with money.