If the United Nations was fully funded why would we need the Arc or social enterprise?
While it is true that a fully funded United Nations would likely be beneficial to various developing countries around the world, social enterprise is a different sort of initiative with effects that differ from the politics of the United Nations. One would hope that an action benefitting one member of the United Nations would benefit another, but the social enterprise is specifically oriented to that purpose. It serves to bring social change as well as profit to businesses and communities in developing countries and oftentimes also generates positive social and financial change in a developed world country simultaneously. Politics between countries are certainly a factor in social enterprises and economics play a large part in UN decisions, but UN funding is oftentimes well directed in dealing with political issues and social enterprise is a mutually beneficial symbiosis between citizens of countries that serve to create bonds not associated with the government as much as with the people themselves. As well, the face of business is changing so that social enterprises are becoming more popular and demanded by the public, as well as useful to the communities they exist in. More and more, companies need to also present some sort of environmental or social value so the social enterprise is an endeavour that serves both working parties as well as the public better than a change enacted by the government and the UN could.
In short: the social enterprise is a mutually beneficial project that serves the public and both business partners and raises profit and productivity where it exists, instead of draining money and efforts from the UN. That difference in method and purpose makes the social enterprise a more efficient way of improving economics and building bonds between regular citizens, and leaves political efforts to the better suited UN.