Karnani and Prahalad

IN YOUR OPINION, which arguments you prefer Karnanis or Prahalads? Why? The Fortune at the stinker of the Pyramide (F. trip the light fantastic toe Prahalads article) campaign the idea that if MNCs fuel succeed in the BOP market their potential rewards, such as result, profits and contri plainlyions to human kind will be prodigious. This challenging hazard is take a leakd due to the characteristics of an unsaturated market (e. g. ize) which required affordability, availability, awareness and access. The Mirage at the Bottom of the Pyramid (M. BOP Karnanis article) defend a different status from Prahalads arguing mainly that the BOP market is composed by 2. 7 billion of unforesightfuls instead of 4 billion that the fortune at BOP is a misleading nonion due to high damage for MNCs, unfortunates purchasing power, fallacy of affordability and the uncorrect exemplifications in Prahalads article (e. g. Casas Bahia).Moreover, the article defend that it is not only crucial to r aise poors income creating use or frowning prices decreasing quality but also to reach productivity, efficient markets, increase poors capabilities and freedom, make social and ethnical changes and transform the role of government. Firstly, it is not possible to precise the size of it of the BOP market and therefore authors can use the more convenient first of data. In my opinion, the dimension the BOP market (4 billion or 2. billion) is in both(prenominal) cases relevant for MNCs, comparing with saturated markets where they operate, which have the pressure to growth trough new markets or trough new products in read 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 fooled to think that small size products are cheaper but they do not have another option. Therefore, devote them the possibility of choosing others items (e. g smaller products) is a way to provide th em, at least, the capacity for a daily inspiration.Thirdly, all individuals have different consumption needs and therefore they can be prioritized differently. In my opinion, no interdiction or change can be made to avoid poors relatively bad consumption since it is more a function of culture, habits and preferences than a lack of information. In the long term run, with the development of the country, the poor consumer will naturally change its consumption. The lack of information, mentioned before, is used by Karnani to let off the vulnerability of the poor consumer.Nevertheless, when Karnani defend that the BOP market prefers cheaper but lower quality products (e. g. Nirma) even if it can cause blisters, he seems to disregard the item that consumers are not well-informed and may not know around potential effects. How can the poor consumer not have enough acquaintance to understand the trade-off between buying two different products or the trade-off between small-size and pr ice but have enough cultivation to understand about the price-quality/safety trade-off?In my opinion, in this explanation, Karnani edge some inconsistency in his arguments. Furthermore, I agree with the notion of The poors as producers but in order to be achieving it is necessary to have monetary and governmental support, a minimum of infrastructures available, etc. 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 reason out that I prefer Prahalads perspective because he takes into account both consumption and production in order to achieve poverty easement in which multiple players are involved (e. g. NGOs, governamental authorities and other companies) and not only MNCs. Also, in my opinion, creating the ability to consume is a way to create potential disposable income and original and lucrative markets. In that sense, F.BOP article, perceive and sop up the development of the BOP market more as a composite plant and detailed process in which companies are put away beginners and therefore gloss over learning, improving and innovating. In addition, Prahalads 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)