agreed silky bouncy hair is good. my point is that participating in a such a value chain does not automatically guarantee that their (the people in the village buying these things) lives have been improved. the article spoke of shampoo selling like it was a magic bullet which would make everyone rich - when in fact the article was a disguised marketing campaign (for silky hair).
i can agree with the argument if its just about improving the lot of the producers & their employees (which by itself is not a bad thing). agree that there is an employment potential involved in rural marketing, distribution, retailing etc....but this bottom of the pyramid thing doesnt talk about other impacts: people getting into debt, pollution, requirement for other social institutions (banks,education, saving plans), etc... if the article had spoken of the villagers being the producers of the raw material in the shampoo - it could make some sense. (subject to fair price purchase of raw materials etc...on that front the villagers might be better off with private companies rather than fixed govt. pricing....) In that article it looks like there is a flow of resources only from the top of the pyramid. i see millions of dollars being spent on development training programs for poor people and for people living in rural areas, (the only benefit being the attendees get free lunch ) Havent seen one which talks about educating the people at the top of the pyramid on the problems of 'over' development.... [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 03/20/2006 01:32:12 PM: > At 12:03 16/03/2006, Ashok Hariharan wrote: > >Maybe less body odor and more silky hair - but there are easier and > >cheaper ways to do the same without buying shampoo. > > so do you use shampoo and soap, rather than "easier and cheaper" > alternatives? if you think this is an "improvement" for you, why not for > the consumers in the village referred to in the article? > > -rishab > > >
