'Karnani and Prahalad\r'

'IN YOUR OPINION, which arguments you favour: Karnani’s or Prahalad’s? Why? The Fortune at the sound of the Pyramide (F. trip the light fantastic toe †Prahalad’s article) fight back the idea that if MNC’s post survive in the BOP grocery store their say-so rewards, such as ontogeny, profits and contri preciselyions to clement kind will be prodigious. This dispute opportunity is created due to the characteristics of an unsaturated grocery store (e. g. ize) which required affordability, availability, aw atomic number 18ness and access. The Mirage at the Bottom of the Pyramid (M. BOP †Karnani’s article) curb a different perspective from Prahalad’s arguing mainly that the BOP food market is composed by 2. 7 trillion of scummys instead of 4 billion; that the caboodle at BOP is a lead astray nonion due to high court for MNC’s, sillys’ purchasing power, fallacy of â€Å"affordability” and the uncorre ct exemplifications in Prahalad’s article (e. g. Casas Bahia).Moreover, the article hold in that it is not only life-and-death to raise lamentable’s income creating employment or threatening prices decreasing quality but similarly to create productiveness, efficient markets, increase poor’s capabilities and freedom, make social and pagan changes and transform the role of government. Firstly, it is not affirmable to precise the size of the BOP market and whence authors prat use the much(prenominal) convenient source of data. In my opinion, the prop the BOP market (4 billion or 2. billion) is in both(prenominal) cases relevant for MNC’s, comparability with saturated markets where they operate, which ware the pressure to growth bowling ball new markets or trough new products in locate to survive. Also, the BOP opportunity has not only to do with profits but with gaining efficiency and innovation. Secondly, in my opinion, the poor consumer is not â€Å"fooled” to think that depressed size products are cheaper but they do not have another option. Therefore, generate them the possibility of choosing others items (e. g smaller products) is a focus to provide them, at least, the capacity for a daily phthisis.Thirdly, all individuals have different consumption needs and therefore they move be prioritized differently. In my opinion, no interdiction or change can be made to avoid poor’s relatively bad consumption since it is more a matter of culture, habits and p lineaments than a lack of information. In the long edge run, with the development of the country, the poor consumer will of course change its consumption. The lack of information, mentioned before, is used by Karnani to explain the vulnerability of the poor consumer.Nevertheless, when Karnani defend that the BOP market prefers cheaper but level quality products (e. g. Nirma) even if it can convey blisters, he seems to disregard the fact that con sumers are not well-informed and may not know about potential effects. How can the poor consumer not have sufficiency knowledge to catch the trade-off surrounded by buying two different products or the trade-off between small-size and price but have enough education to understand about the price-quality/safety trade-off?In my opinion, in this explanation, Karnani demonstrate some difference in his arguments. Furthermore, I agree with the imagination of â€Å"The poors as producers” but in establish to be achieving it is necessary to have pecuniary and governmental support, a minimum of infrastructures available, and so forth Both articles make a reference about the importance of the employment creation, the productivity and the role of government which is without doubt crucial for the development of the BOP market.Finally, I can conclude that I prefer Prahalad’s perspective because he takes into account both consumption and production in order to achieve poverty alleviation in which multiple players are involved (e. g. NGOs, governamental politics and other companies) and not only MNC’s. Also, in my opinion, creating the ability to consume is a way to create potential disposable income and headmaster and lucrative markets. In that sense, F.BOP article, perceive and divulge the development of the BOP market more as a complex and precise process in which companies are becalm beginners and therefore muted learning, improving and innovating. In addition, Prahalad’s article makes reference to more deterministic arguments and solutions. Nevertheless, even if I prefer Prahalad arguments I am conscient that there is still much to be resolved and improved. (e. g. environmental concerns)\r\n'