This is an opinion, and I guess I share your view in large part. My basic starting point is that the welfare state is under pressure everywhere, and whether you come from the left or the right, it's a fact, if you look at the trends. The instruments of social enterprise, social finance, social impact bonds all fulfill different objectives, but in general if the thinking is to use them to replace an established government program whose specific objective is to serve the population I think that's the wrong point to start with. But if these tools are used to trigger innovation in social policy—and God knows, we'll need some because the needs are growing more and more—and if they trigger more efficient service delivery...government or even non-profit organizations are not always a model of efficient service delivery.
If we can find ways to improve that without depriving them of funding, but if they're funded differently, so be it. The literature isn't conclusive. That doesn't mean that it's a bad way to go. We just have to go there with caution, and as we advocated a minute ago, you have to evaluate the best means of doing that as you go forward. There will be trial and error and there will be more errors at the beginning than successes, but eventually it may trigger inspiring moves from non-profit organizations that would otherwise not happen if they stayed with the traditional funding process.