Problems with Pull - the politics of "common sense" model

I took the time to read Hagel and Brown's "From Push to Pull - Emerging models for mobilizing resources" where they argue that "rather than seeking to dictate the actions that people must take, pull models seek to provide people on the periphery with the tools and resources (including connections to other people) required to take initiative and creatively address opportunities as they arise" (p. 4) and all was going along just fine until I got to the last section, entitled "broader implications of the transition from push to pull models" where they posit that our political organizations will be reshaped by this new model. They illustrate with this projection; "for example, public policies often focus on push programs for development of talent - agencies identify promising talent arenas and then design targeted subsidies to create training programs to develop specific skills. Pull-oriented approaches fostering freer movement of investment funds and more stable legal infrastructures are likely to be much more effective in enabling talent to find its highest value outlets and in creating more effective mechanisms for sustained and rapic development of that talent." (pp. 45-46) Which freaks me out. Because it is also easy to imagine this as a call for the end of any development program that targets the development of skills in those who may not have other means of skill development. Implicit in their thesis is the belief that "taking initiative" and "being creative" are innate human behaviors, and not socially derived capital assets that individuals create and accrue as a result of investments made in the development of their own sense of easy access to power and authority. The social and economic forces that foster inequal access to education into power are bracketed by the very theory of economics that posits rational, abstract markets as the model for social interactions. Where is the intelligible Bourdieu who can make this known outside of academia?