Paternalism and the Mirage

Professor Karnani’s primary critique of Prahalad’s The Fortune at the Bottom of the Pyramid, is that it focuses multinationals on the extreme poor as consumers. Instead Karnani offers that “…we should emphasize buying from the poor. By far the best way to alleviate poverty is to raise the income of the poor.”

This is not a new idea, nor is it at odds with the idea of marketing innovative products toward the poor. Karnani’s arguments against the poor as consumers often boil down to naked paternalism:

“Holding the poor consumer’s income constant, the only way he can purchase the newly available product is to divert expenditure from some other product. If he is a ‘rational’ consumer, this will increase his welfare. However, as a practical matter, this is unlikely to result in a significant change in his poverty situation. Additionally, if for some reason, the poor consumer is irrational in his resource allocation choice, the BOP initiative might even result in reducing his welfare.”

“The poor surely have a right to buy televisions; the issue is whether it is in their self interest to buy televisions.”

So if there is a risk that poor consumers might make irrational buying decisions, who should help guide them? The United Nations? The dictator of that poor country? A local tribal leader? Religious clerics? In an ideal market, consumer choice is best left to… the consumer.

Professor Karnani emphasizes that the government should be focused on consumer protection. But we have to remember that consumer protection laws in the West have taken a century to build. Should developing nations that can’t even deliver basic sanitation, infrastructure and public health shift their focus to developing consumer protection laws? Consumer protection is a worthy goal, but it is ultimately citizens who must hold their own governments accountable when the forces in the free market are perceived as harmful to their society or environment.

Karnanai also takes issue with Prahalad’s example of a skin whitening cream that was marketed to women in India by international giant Unilever. Karnani blames it for it entrenching women’s disempowerment, writing that:

“The BOP proposition is not satisfied with just giving the company the right to sell skin lightening cream. It goes further and commends the company for empowering women and helping eradicate poverty. This is an intellectually and morally problematic position.”

He also notes that Unilver’s marketing campaign was failure:

“The All India Democratic Women’s Association campaigned against this and another advertisement as being racist, discriminatory, and an affront to women’s dignity.

“Ravi Shankar Prasad, minister of Information and Broadcasting, said ‘Fair & Lovely cannot be supported because the advertising is demeaning to women and women’s movement’. Unilever has since discontinued these two advertisements in India.”

Karanani advocates that we preemptively limit consumer choice because the poor might make economic decisions that seem irrational from a Western perspective.  But it was by giving consumers a choice in India that they considered the role of women in Indian society, and market forces ultimately drove Unilever to pull the ads. Would Karnani consider poor customers to have been rational economic actors in that case?
.

.

Paternalism Meets Micro-Credit

Karnani also finds harm in Prahalad’s example of Casas Bahia. This Brazilian superstore facilitates the purchase of high-quality appliances by offering credit to poor consumers who have unpredictable income streams.

Karnani argues that:

“The BOP proposition again falls prey to a fallacy: providing credit does not change the affordability of a product. The finance term for Casas Bahia ranges from four months to one year, with an average of six months. All that the financing scheme does is provide instant gratification at a price. For the privilege of this instant gratification, he pays an interest rate of over 4% per month. People with ‘low and unpredictable income’ would be well advised to save and pay in cash; this will enable them to do a better job of comparison shopping too. It is not surprising that many of Casas Bahia’s customers do not understand well how to unbundle the purchase price and the interest cost and instead focus on the monthly installment payment.”

Using credit in a developing nation is rarely about instant gratification. Village groups in West Africa without access to micro-credit schemes organized themselves and made small loans to group members for the monthly interest rate of about 10%. These loans helped fund medicine for sick children or seeds for cash crops. Poverty tends to produce desperately pragmatic people. Would Mr. Karnani advocate saving money throughout the rainy season only to buy seeds for a cash crop to be planted the next year? Doesn’t it depend on the rate of return? And who is best able to judge when to extend credit?

If a poor Brazilian consumer buys an appliance on credit, isn’t it possible that this person might become more productive as a result? Washing machines liberate people from having to spend the day washing by hand. Gas stoves are more efficient that searching for firewood.

You don’t have to question whether someone will make the right rational economic choices just because they are poor. I agree that government regulation is needed, but we should not discourage the private sector from extending credit just because poor consumers might buy something they don’t need. If someone defaults on the loan at Casas Bahia, I’m guessing they won’t be issued more credit.
.

.

Corruption - Total instances found: 0

Unfortunately this heading applies to a search for the word “corruption” in the PDF of Professor Karnani’s paper, not to the situation the facing the world’s poor. Transparency International recognizes that this is one of the gravest problems facing the poor. Corruption hurts the poor both as consumers (by distorting prices) and producers (by discouraging investment). Neither Karnani and Prahalad offer much insight into how to remedy this.

In fact, Karnani hardly even acknowledges the difficulty hurdle that corruption presents in establishing well-functioning institutions needed to turn the poor into producers. In attacking Prahalad, he seems to lose sight of the fact that billions of the world’s poor live in countries with failed governments.

“By emphatically focusing on the private sector, the BOP proposition detracts from the imperative to correct the failure of the government to fulfill its traditional and accepted functions such as public safety, basic education, public health, and infra-structure.”

Karnani and BOP advocates both want to see improvements in governance. Both want to improve the conditions facing the poor. It’s only a question of how to reach that noble goal. Making a market at the BOP gives multinationals a stake in the improvement. Surely sophisticated market analysts at the world’s corporations would recognize that a well-educated, healthy population of consumers purchases more goods?

We could, of course, step back and try to figure out what is going wrong in the failed states of the world. We just need to fix the infrastructure, education, eliminate AIDS, and end epidemic corruption. This is not a novel idea. The World Bank, UN and countless other academics, advisors and NGOs have been trying to achieve this for decades. As soon as we have that all figured out, will Karanani let companies sell approved goods to the poor?

Karnani concludes that:

Private companies should try to pursue marketing to the poor. However, the profit opportunities are modest at best and we suggest a cautious approach. Large companies that require scale economies should be even more hesitant.

Why ward off large companies? Free market innovation is an invaluable tool. Companies should try to earn a profit in developing nations. Many will fail as thousands of companies before have failed in rich nations. Just don’t wave off the LifeStraws and PlayPumps of the world while we wait for developing nations to create consumer protection laws up to our standard.

Karnani is correct to focus on establishing institutions that will help the poor earn more income. But while we wait, why not try the BOP approach?

Yesterday I wrote about the shortcomings of Prahalad’s book, The Fortune at the Bottom of the Pyramid. We left with the question of whether there was even a market to discuss. Several factors make it difficult to estimate disposable income at the bottom of the pyramid (BOP). Even if it is not a fortune, there is likely much more than a nickel a day of disposable income amongst the world’s 4 billion poor.

Most people in extreme poverty live in rural areas and derive much of their diet from subsistence farming. This means that relatively little of their income is spent of food. In family or tribe-oriented societies, there is also an income smoothing effect. Kinship networks, for example, mean that if one person in a family has a high-paying position in the government, many in the family will benefit. In addition, income such as flows from non-governmental aid, international transfers from foreign nationals living abroad, and the grey economy may be under-reported in GNP figures.

In response to Karnani’s paper, the WRI’s NextBillion.net noted that:

BOP households collectively spend money, lots of it, on a wide variety of goods and services, and are clearly willing to pay for services such as connectivity, clean water, financial services, energy, health care, and education for their children, as well as food, housing, and consumer goods. The BOP is already an economic actor, not just a passive, dependent group, and its collective actions define a market.

So there let’s assume that there is indeed a market of billions at the bottom of the pyramid. Should companies try to reach it? Karnani cautions that viewing the BOP as a vast market of micro-consumers is “potentially a dangerous delusion.” Let’s look more closely at his argument.
.

.

Distribution and Economies of Scale

Concerned about the apparent gullibility of multinational corporations (MNCs), Karnani warns that:

“Not only is the BOP market quite small, it is unlikely to be very profitable, especially for a large company. The costs of serving the markets at the bottom of the pyramid are very high…. This increases distribution and marketing costs and makes it difficult to exploit economies of scale. Weak infrastructure (transportation, communication, media, and legal) further increases cost of doing business.”

Two words: Coke and Guinness. Both have very deep penetration in West Africa. Granted these are not going to improve the health and well-being of the BOP (though Guinness bottles do read, “Guinness is Good for You“). Somehow these MNCs have overcome the challenge of distributing and marketing their products across a large geographic area.

Regardless of infrastructure and marketing costs, the market will help align buyers and sellers if the price is right for each.
.

.

Reducing Prices at the Bottom of the Pyramid

Prahalad’s thesis hinges on the idea that attracting more competition to the BOP will drive down product prices, thus freeing up their disposable income for other purchases. This is basically how Wal-Mart has made low-income Americans feel richer even as real income has stagnated over the last decade. But Karnani takes issue with Prahalad’s assertion that the private sector can deliver high quality goods to the world’s desperately poor at competitive prices:

“There are only three ways to reduce prices: 1) reduce profits, 2) reduce costs without reducing quality, and 3) reduce costs by reducing quality…. the only realistic way to reduce price is to reduce cost. The BOP proposition is adamant that we should not reduce quality in this process.

“Unless all the current producers are grossly inefficient, the only way to reduce cost… without reducing quality will always require a significant improvement in technology. Good examples of this are found in the areas of computers, telecommunications and various electronic products. It is difficult to find examples of such dramatic cost reduction in other product categories. It is not surprising that the BOP proposition repeatedly uses these same examples. We should also note that the ultimate impact on the real income of the poor due to these major price reductions is quite low because the poor spend only a small part of their income on such electronic products. The poor spend over 80% of their income on food, clothing and fuel – products that have not benefited from such dramatic technological changes in a long time.”

Let’s evaluate that last statement and have a look at how technology might help deliver improved food, clothing, fuel, and public health.

Food: There are constant improvements in pest-resistant crops, hybrid seeds, or high volume animal husbandry. Many famers in Africa still till individual family farms by hand. Certainly technology could help them improve efficiency which would lead to lower prices.

And technology improvements in computers and telecommunications do not exist in a vacuum. There are numerous positive spillover effects that affect the BOP as producers. The Washington Post recently reported that cell phones in Congo have enabled farmers and fishermen to “…use text messaging to check market prices, eliminating middlemen and increasing profits — and preventing long trips to the market on days it is canceled.” So a technology unrelated to agriculture has helped farmers saved on input prices (transport to the market on days when it’s canceled) and output prices.

Clothes: Apparel prices have tumbled over the past decade. Much of this is due to reduced quotas on Chinese apparel imports in the U.S. and Europe. Thus, the assertion that “the only way to reduce cost… without reducing quality will always require a significant improvement in technology” is inaccurate. Clothing prices have dropped as a result of trade policy, not an improvement in technology. This does have a trickle-down effect for the world’s poor.

Fuel: Fuel has indeed become more expensive. Women have to scavenge farther for firewood. Oil prices lead Nigerians into the deadly practice of siphoning off crude oil from pipelines running through their villages. But technology can improve access to energy sources. Military applications such as SkyBuilt mobile solar power could find a market at the BOP helping medical centers or providing a short term power source for harvesting and processing crops.

Public Health: As patents expire on novel drugs, cheaper generic drugs will enter these markets. Playpump is an innovative approach to water delivery. LifeStraw promises to exploit economies of scale in order to drive down prices for its personal water filtration device.

Technology: Last week, the Wall Street Journal ran a front-page story about an American entrepreneur, Greg Wyler, who was building an Internet infrastructure in Rwanda. The focus of Terracom is to first focus on market access, then profits. Mr. Wyler might disagree with Karanani’s ideas about providing a quality product at reasonable prices for the poor. He is quoted as saying, “We’re on a mission here to see what happens when we drive prices down and quality up.”

And lest you think that Rwanda is an obvious market for an outside investor, have a look at the graph at the right.

As WRI writes in response to Karnani’s critique:

The pertinent development question is whether the BOP is well served by the present (often informal) markets, and whether there are unmet needs that could be better served by more competitive markets and broader participation by the legitimate private sector.

I believe that private sector innovation help can drive prices lower, maintain or increase quality, and help deliver goods that result in better livelihoods for those at the bottom of the pyramid. But what if multinationals start marketing products that the poor don’t need? Are BOP consumers rational economic actors? Or is Karnani correct when he says that, “The problem is that the poor often make choices that are not in their own self interest.”

More on that soon…

In 2004, C.K. Prahalad, a professor at University of Michigan’s Ross School of Business published the groundbreaking book “The Fortune at the Bottom of the Pyramid.” The basic thesis is that multinational corporations (MNCs) have concentrated their sales and marketing efforts on the richest citizens of the world while ignoring the 4 billion consumers who live on less than $2 per day at the Bottom of the Pyramid (BOP).

He asserts that introducing market choice to the poor will free villagers from local monopolists, creating a virtuous cycle of consumer access and improved product quality. MNCs that sell products in this enormous, underserved market stand to make hefty profit. And, as more and more companies turn their attention to the BOP, competition will drive private sector innovations that address the needs of the poor. By giving MNCs an economic stake in this market, they in turn will draw the attention to problems of governance.

Although the work is primarily empirical and draws too heavily from examples in India, the BOP argument is an intriguing one. It eschews the notion that concentrating on the poor should be relegated to a secondary “corporate social responsibility” initiative and takes an integrative approach to the private sector achieving what non-governmental institutions and multi-lateral lenders such as the World Bank have not: pulling billions out of poverty.

We should applaud the BOP adherents for their novel approach, an approach that too closely resembles the idealism typical of a first-year Peace Corps volunteer. It is only after the corruption, complacency, intestinal ailments, and constant economic opacity have wrung out the initial naiveté that the discussion becomes interesting.

And a dose of cynicism is exactly what Professor Aneel Karnani - also of the Michigan School of Business - introduces in a recently-released working paper, “Fortune at the Bottom of the Pyramid: A Mirage.” He asserts that:

“Rather than focusing on the poor as consumers, we need to view the poor as producers. The only way to alleviate poverty is to raise the real income of the poor.”

Professor Karnani’s basic thesis is that BOP de-emphasizes the role of government in providing basic services and that we must focus on building the capacity of the world’s poor by focusing on government failures in education, health, and infrastructure.

Unfortunately, non-governmental organizations have been focusing on failures of government for decades. Billions of dollars have been spent flying experts around the world to bolster child immunization rates, build water delivery systems, and advise on bankruptcy reform. As you can see from the map above, the last 27 years have been lean ones for many in the bottom of the pyramid. This is not to diminish individuals’ efforts or passion. It is only to acknowledge that it is a very difficult goal and multi-lateral institutions do not have a recipe, much less a consensus, of how to foster economic growth.

One of the positive side effects of the BOP argument is that it makes MNCs stakeholders in a new and underserved market. To be sure, there are fatal flaws in the logic and research initiated by Prahalad. But MBAs are new to development and we should embrace that wide-eyed optimism even as we critique shakey methodology.

Is there a Market at the Bottom of the Pyramid?

Karnani points out one inexcusable fallacy in Prahalad’s work: market definition.

Prahalad used the World Bank’s estimates for the number of people living on an income of $2 a day or less (poverty), and $1 a day or less (extreme poverty). Both poverty measures are at purchasing power parity (PPP).

Why is PPP important? Because no matter where in the world you spend $1 PPP it buys the exact same goods, regardless of local price. So that $1 PPP that the extreme poor earn in a day will buy you one loaf of bread in the U.S. Actual prices are much lower in developing countries, so that same loaf of bread might only cost $.10. The market at the bottom of the pyramid will not pay MNCs in PPP dollars; it will pay them in local currency, as Karnani explains:

“[Prahalad] claims that the BOP potential market is $13 trillion at PPP. This grossly over-estimates the BOP market size. The average consumption of poor people is $1.25 per day and assuming there are 2.7 billion poor people, which implies a BOP market size of $1.2 trillion, at PPP in 2002.

“From the perspective of a multi-national company from a rich country, profits will be repatriated at the financial exchange rates, not at PPP rates. In that case, the global BOP market is less than $0.3 trillion, compared to $11 trillion economy in the US alone – making the BOP a difficult place to look or a fortune.”

Another problem is that the poor spend about 80% of their income on food, clothing and fuel. Suddenly the $300 billion market at the bottom of the pyramid shrinks to $60 billion of disposable income at current exchange rates. Spread amongst 2.7 billion people, that’s about a nickel a day for disposable income.

Karnani also takes issue with the number of poor:

“Prahalad states that there are more than 4 billion people with per capita income below $2 per day at purchasing power parity (PPP) rates…. Most researchers argue that the World Bank already over-estimates the number of poor people, with some researchers estimating the poor at 600 million (The Economist, 2004).”

There’s no shortage of poor, I’m afraid. Sanjay Reddy and Thomas Pogge of Columbia University have written a persuasive paper that critiques World Bank calculation of the number of poor in the world. While they give no new estimate, it’s likely that the world’s poor have been undercounted:

“There is some reason to think that the distortion is in the direction of understating the extent of income poverty.”

So the bottom of the pyramid is left with billions of poor who have no money. Does this invalidate Prahalad’s entire thesis? More on that tomorrow.