Chinese President Hu Jintao is visiting Moscow today to discuss increasing petroleum exports to China. That’s if he doesn’t first blow his budget on a hotel room in Moscow. The Russian oil boom has propelled Moscow to the top of the list of most expensive cities in the world. But the concentration of wealth in the former USSR capital belies the truth about the true state of the former Soviet Union.

Today the fifteen countries that once constituted this superpower stand at odds with one another in terms of economic opportunity, human rights, and development. The Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania are soaring as members of the European Union and NATO. Estonia was ranked top in the World Liberty Index, with its Baltic neighbors not far behind. Meanwhile Turkmenistan’s eccentric (and recently deceased) President Niyazov spent his country’s resources cultivating world class repression, bested only by North Korea.

Elsewhere, oil resources elsewhere combined with a bungled move to private markets after the fall of communism have produced a kleptocracy across the former Soviet states. Outside of the Baltics, all of the former Soviet states now rank amongst the most corrupt countries in the world. On the bright side, communism does seem to have some positive lasting effects when it comes to equality. Five of the top ten most equal countries are from the former USSR.

Having shed the planned economy, these countries have all taken wildly different paths. But what if the USSR existed today? Statastic used several different development indicators and weighted them for each country based on population (one caveat: Russia constitutes 50% of the population of the former USSR). These statistics were combined into a new rating for USSR based on the latest survey data for various development indicators.

Taken as a whole, the USSR is not a very nice place to live 16 years after the fall of communism. Corruption in the USSR is comparable to that in Libya or Rwanda. The countries of the USSR today have less economic and individual freedom than the Democratic Republic of Congo. Even the USSR’s crumbling socialized medicine contributes to a mediocre score in the United Nations Human Development Index. Today the USSR ranks at the same level as its long-forgotten communist friend, China.
.

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?

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.

Yesterday Foreign Policy and the Center for Global Development released their 4th annual Commitment to Development Index (CDI). This index attempts to quantify how well rich countries “help poor countries build prosperity, good government, and security.” The index measures seven policy areas: aid (per capita and quality), trade, investment, migration, environment, security, and technology.

Many countries’ own policies stand in direct contradiction to one another showing, perhaps, that internal politics are primary, and policies affecting the poorest countries on earth are secondary. Andrew Natsios, the former head of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), pointed out some of these contradictions before resigning in January, 2006. As Foreign Policy notes:

“Natsios criticized a law that requires the U.S. government to buy food from U.S. farmers, ship it on American boats, and deliver it to famine-stricken regions via U.S.-based organizations. The U.S. government must deliver food aid this way even when it depresses local food prices, pushing more farmers into poverty, and even when it could buy food from farmers just outside a famine zone for much less. Some nongovernmental organizations that get a large fraction of their funding from the program defended the status quo, arguing that dropping the ‘made in America’ requirement would undermine the program’s support among American farmers and shippers. Congress quickly axed Natsios’s proposal for reform. That the U.S. government must pay off American interests to feed the starving is a sad commentary on how low the commitment to development may still be.”

In an unrelated but equally interesting measure, Transparency International has for several years been publishing the Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI) in order to draw attention to the role of corruption in stifling economic development. When we look at corruption in rich countries, there appears to be a parallel between increased corruption and decreased effectiveness at helping poor countries. To be fair, the 21 rich countries ranked in the Corruptions Perceptions Index are squeaky-clean relative to the countries they are trying to help (with the exceptions of Italy and Greece).

Is there a link? Perhaps pandering at home - the constant political pressure from competing interests - creates economic inefficiencies that hurt poor countries. These policies could come in the form of unfair trade policies (e.g. Switzerland’s $987.58 per-cow subsidy) or environmental indifference (the United States’ ultra-low gas taxes).

Then again, it’s also easy to be small. The 5 countries “most committed to development” have an average population of 7.9 million whereas the bottom five have an average population 53.7 million. Similar ratios hold for corruption: the most transparent rich countries have smaller average populations.

.
Sources: Statastic research; Foreign Policy; Center for Global Development; Wikipedia

In 1972, the year Statastico was born, a penny was worth the equivalent of a 2006 nickel. Imagine if the U.S. Mint decided in 1972 to start making new coins called Fifths (with a portrait of James Monroe, naturally) and they were worth 1/5 of a cent. Well, we have them today and we call them pennies.

As recently as 2002, the U.S. Mint pulled in $24 million in seigniorage by producing pennies. No more. The Washington Post recently reported that because of rising zinc prices, the U.S. Mint is paying about 1.2 cents for every penny produced – not a very good return on investment.

Getting rid of pennies is a contentious issue. There is a pro-penny organization and people seem to attribute more value to a penny than it’s actual worth. Americans are frugal enough to pick a penny up off the street 76% of the time, though rich folks are more than twice as likely to leave that penny on the ground.

Indeed the mighty dollar’s biggest currency rival, the euro, also has 1 cent coins. However, businesses in Finland, the Netherlands and Greece commonly round to the nearest 5 cents to avoid those coins, so maybe the Europeans are onto something.

What about the rest of the world? Comparing a country’s most humble coins is a little tricky. A penny and a centavo both divide a major unit of currency by 100, but that’s where the similarity ends. First, you have to factor in the ebb and flow of exchange rates. Then it’s important to consider what a centavo buys locally, also known as purchasing power parity (PPP). One centavo might buy a whole mango in Guatemala, but it would only get you the mango’s stem in a U.S. grocery store.

So how worthless is the penny? Only the Chinese produce a more worthless coin (and we all know that their currency is undervalued). On the other end of the scale, the Japanese 1 yen coin is worth almost six times more than a U.S. penny in local wages.

And while we’re on the subject, have a look at our largest commonly used coin, the quarter. In coin-crazy Japan, they mint the most valuable coin in the world at currect exchange rates: The 500 yen coin is worth $4.33.

But once you factor in the lower local wages, it’s the Central and West African CFA (a vestigial franc from French colonial rule) that truly stands out. The 500 CFA coin - popular and convenient for highway bribes - is worth about 80% of the local hourly wage in Cameroon, the equivalent of a coin worth $16.50 in the U.S.!

Sources: Statastic research; Wikipedia; xe.com; IMF

*Notes: These are the highest and lowest value coins that commonly used in these selected countries. Coin currency equivalent was converted to dollars using exchange rate as of 7.13.06. Average hourly wages were calculated using the PPP of GDP per capita, and assume that workers toil 50 weeks per year, 40 hours per week.

The Internet has been available in the developing world almost as long as it’s been here in the U.S. Internet cafes were popping up in Cameroon in the mid 1990s before the local Peace Corps volunteers even knew how to use them. Penetration rates, however, lag predictably behind the richer countries in the north. But the lack of telecommunications infrastructure is something of a blessing in disguise: developing nations have the potential to leapfrog technologies. Cell phones and VOIP prove easier than installing costly land lines, and there’s no need for telephone poles and copper cable if governments can create WiFi and WiMAX zones around burgeoning urban areas.

Wired Magazine recently featured a map with average prices for one hour of online access in Internet cafes around the world. Statastic used the average hourly price as a percentage of daily wages to provide a glimpse into the state of Internet access in a selection of low to middle income countries.

The chart below begs several questions. Could lowering the cost of public Internet access lead to higher usage rates? What is the demographic profile of the average Internet user in the developing world? Should multi-lateral donors subsidize the cost of public Internet access?

Among this small sample, D.R. Congo, Nigeria and Kenya are the three most expensive places for locals to access the Internet, relative to income. They also have some of the lowest usage rates. But these countries have several other characteristics in common: low literacy, high rates of corruption, and a high level of inequality. These countries may simply have a limited number of Internet cafes that cater to tourists, corrupt officials and the wealthy locals who are lucky enough to have an education and a job.

Brazil’s usage rates are surprisingly high. Perhaps Brazil’s high inequality can help explain how 14% of Brazilians have regular access to the Internet despite the fact that one hour in an Internet café costs nearly one sixth of average daily wages. Just who are those fortunate 14%?

Sources:
http://internetworldstats.com
WIRED Magazine, May 2006