“If the United Nations was fully funded why would we need the Arc or social enterprise?”

Sometimes the magnitude of ones reach is not always a benefit. This is the case with the United Nations. One of the greatest disadvantages the UN faces is their sheer size. Because of the broad scope of the organization, every decision must be carefully calculated. Acting as a global mediator means that they must be considerate of the sensitive nature their decisions have on relationships between countries. As a result, it does not have the immediate working power that smaller organizations can have. Changes and policies within the UN can be a slow and painstaking process that involves voting and strenuous protocol. Social enterprises do not have the constraints of a large organization. They have the freedom of no reputation and no preconceived judgments by the people, which can act as a major advantage.

An example of the United Nations Security Council meeting.

Also, social enterprises can follow up on progress more easily than an organization that looks at the larger picture. A social entrepreneur can measure the extent of their change by witnessing the effect first-hand. They can hear the stories and make changes based on feedback because they have a personal connection and investment. This accessibility can be more powerful than any organization and attract future generations to be involved providing a more sustainable solution.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/27/sunday-review/why-the-un-cant-solve-the-worlds-problems.html?_r=0

Picture:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2f/Flag_of_the_United_Nations.svg/2000px-Flag_of_the_United_Nations.svg.png

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_1