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…

State fairs are in full swing, and presidential hopefuls are getting acquainted with Iowans. As the first state to hold a caucus in the 2008 presidential primary, politicians take advantage of the state fair’s 1 million visitors to test the political waters.

It’s an odd setting for DC politics. The Iowa State Fair is a demonstration of how agriculture has helped shape a quirky Midwestern culture. Today’s events, for example, include a Mom Calling Contest, hot beef sundaes, rubber stamp art techniques, “Focus on Ostrich,” by the Iowa Ostrich Association, at least two goat milking competitions, and a titillating program entitled “How’s My Wienerschnitzel?” Ambivalent fairgoers can escape to the Iowa Wine and Cheese Garden starting at 11 am.

For anyone born and raised in Iowa, the real highlight is the butter cow. Lines typically snake around the Agriculture Building as eager Iowans wait for look at the cow crafted from 500-600 pounds of butter. While the Butter Cow Lady, Norma “Duffy” Lyon, has sculpted a new butter cow annually for the last 45 years, this year she gave up the reigns to her 29 year-old apprentice, Sarah Pratt. Over the years, Norma has also sculpted butter objects to keep the cow company in her refrigerated showcase. These butter creatures hold a funhouse mirror to Iowa culture: Grant Wood’s “American Gothic,” Elvis Presley, Leonardo da Vinci’s “The Last Supper,” John Wayne, The Peanuts Gang, Tiger Woods holding a tiger (really), and this year, Superman.

The Iowa State Fair also has another proud tradition: politicians eating fair food. Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich visited the fair last week and ate a pork chop on a stick. Delaware Senator Joseph Biden, who first visited the fair 20 years ago during his bid for president, was reportedly devouring a hoagie in one hand and an ice cream cone in the other.

Other politicians couldn’t help but compare the Iowa State Fair to home. Indiana Senator Evan Bayh commented that “I see you serve beer at your fair and we don’t” in Indiana. (Wait until he finds out what time the wine garden opens.) George Pataki observed that, “We have a great state fair in New York but… we don’t have pork on a stick.” Republican Senator Sam Brownback was at the Iowa State Fair yesterday and Senators John McCain and Bill Frist are expected today or tomorrow. Iowa Governor, Tom Vilsack, has also visited several times - no word on what he’s been eating, but as a native Iowan it’s unlikely to make much news.

So are the state fair visits paying off? According to WHO-TV’s informal “Cast Your Kernel” poll taken on August 16th, not really. Of the Republicans, Senator John McCain came out on top with 24 percent, followed by Rudy Giuliani and Condoleezza Rice each with 20 percent. Neither of the leading Democrats has yet paid a visit to the butter cow. John Edwards and Senator Hillary Clinton were tied at 33 percent, while Iowa’s own governor Tom Vilsack came in third with 13 percent.

It seems that the 500 pounds of butter in the butter cow are enough to sustain the hopes of at least eight politicians. It is a copious amount - about 2000 sticks in all. That’s enough buttersticks to nickname 2,000 baby pandas, or draw butter for 2,000 lobsters. Or, you could butter 4,000 tubs of popcorn, or 16,000 pieces of toast.

And if you get addicted to shaving with butter like Kramer, you can get 16,000 close shaves out of this year’s butter cow. Those 500 pounds of butter would also fuel a very successful bake sale: 20,000 pieces of fudge, 35,000 of my mother’s famous brownies, 60,000 Toll House cookies, or 64,000 Rice Krispies Treats. Of course, if you’re in Iowa, you would most likely use 500 pounds of butter on 32,000 ears of sweet corn.

In a letter about his trip to Iowa, Newt Gingrich closed with this:

“…the process of electing the President of the most powerful country on earth passes through a state fair in rural America where more than one million people come with their families to eat nearly anything that comes on a stick, compete in numerous agricultural competitions and contests, ride the rides, enjoy the shows and see the ‘butter cow,’ but that is how we do it in America, where a free people get to put their candidates to the test face to face.”

Fair enough.

Notes: According to the new butter cow lady, Sarah Pratt, this year’s butter cow is a Jersey and requires about 500 pounds of butter.

Assumptions: One ear of Iowa sweet corn only requires half a tablespoon of butter. Popcorn needs 1/4 cup per tub. Lobsters apparently require 1/2 a cup. Statastic does not advocate sautéing pandas, no matter how delicious that might be. Butterstick was blogosphere’s attempt to name Tai Shan, the baby Panda at the National Zoo.

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

Today’s announcement that British Petroleum would be taking crude oil production offline to make urgent repairs drove up oil prices to $77 a barrel. So what about those renewable resources we keep hearing about? We want to break the oil addiction!

Ethanol is indeed sparking renewed interest and a flurry of investment in the U.S. Most of the 3.9 billion gallons of ethanol came from corn and was used in the states where it was grown. Impressive until you realize that Brazil produces 4.8 billion gallons of sugarcane-based ethanol, providing about 40% of their annual gasoline needs.

We have been producing ethanol-based fuels in the United States for decades. Most of the Midwestern states (see charts below) that benefit from $4 billion in corn subsidies have an available 10% mix of ethanol in their gasoline. And with low corn commodity prices, high gas prices and a lack of ethanol refining in the Midwest, it has created the perfect investment storm.

Profit from Archer Daniels Midlands’ (ADM) corn bioproducts increased from $259 million to $446 million this year, and they have aggressive expansion plans. According to today’s Barron’s:

“In the past year, the difference between ethanol [prices] and corn prices has soared from less than 50 cents to about $3.10 a gallon…. That’s lifted the annual return on capital for some ethanol plants toward 50% and set off a stampede of new investment in ethanol refining.”

So it will come as no surprise that the ethanol industry has a strong lobby to protect itself. It’s a twisted relationship. The federal government’s price supports and subsidies regularly create overproduction of corn. This drives corn prices lower suppressing world prices (something the developing nation’s rightly bemoan).

Some of this surplus is used for ethanol. Why? Refineries - and consumers - are incentivized by a $.51 per gallon tax credit for 10% ethanol-based gasoline. Ethanol producers also enjoy significant trade protection in the form of a 2.5% ad valorem tariff and import duty of 54¢ per gallon of ethanol.

In August, 2006, Amani Elobeid and Simla Tokgoz from Iowa State University published a paper that analyzed the economic effects of removing these protections:

“The study finds that the removal of trade distortions induces an increase in the world price of ethanol and a decrease in the U.S. domestic ethanol price, which results in a decline in U.S. ethanol production and an increase in consumption. Consequently, U.S. net ethanol imports increase significantly….”

The Iowa State paper shows that if we were to remove trade barriers and the tax credit, we would see a 14.46% price drop in ethanol for consumers. Ethanol currently makes up 10% of our gasoline in a limited number of markets in California and the Midwest. Lifting trade barriers would allow Brazilian ethanol to more easily reach ports on the East Coast.

Yet we continue to protect ethanol refineries. ADM Chief Executive Patricia Woertz told Barron’s that “ethanol demand could triple. ‘It looks like it has room to grow to 14 billion or 15 billion [gallons per year],’ she said, ‘which is a full 10% blend in the gasoline pool in the United States.’”

Barron’s analysis of the ethanol market was about as sheltered as the heavily-protected ethanol refining industry: “Unfortunately, before ethanol refiners can reach that goal [14 billion or 15 billion gallons per year], they might reach the limits of the country’s corn supply. America’s entire corn crop would satisfy just 12% of gasoline consumption, leaving no corn to feed livestock and humans.”

No corn to feed our delicious cows? Once we remove ADM’s trade protections and give the Brazilians a new market for their ethanol, we should have plenty of corn to feed those future Big Macs. It will help our farmers counteract the predicted 1.7% drop in domestic corn prices, and it might help lift some desperate Brazilians out of poverty.

Didn’t most of us learn competitive advantage in econ 101? This may be a good time for Congress to brush up.

Sources: Statastic research; Environmental Working Group - Farm Subsidy Database

Trade model based on scenario 2 in the following paper: “Removal of U.S. Ethanol Domestic and Trade Distortions: Impact on U.S. and Brazilian Ethanol Markets,” Amani Elobeid and Simla Tokgoz, Working Paper 06-WP 427, August 2006, Center for Agricultural and Rural Development, Iowa State University

Agricultural subsidies criticized in the Washington Post… but not very well

The Washington Post is running a series of articles that expose some of the true costs of agricultural price supports in the United States. Agricultural subsidies are indeed very bad. These subsidies hurt developing nations by artificially depressing global agricultural commodity prices for the crops that developing nations are desperately trying to export. Proponents who claim that such price supports help smooth price fluctuations ignore unintended consequences, and political rhetoric about “saving the family farm” is empty… as are most of the family farms.

Although the Washington Post’s first two reports are well researched, their data is often misleading, incomplete or anecdotal. An example comes from today’s article about the failure of our current system of price supports, also known as Loan Deficiency Payments (LDPs):

One who played it right last year was Michael T. Sullivan, who produces a million bushels of corn annually with his three sons in Franklin, Minn. He thrived even during the depressed post-Katrina market.

Well before the storm, Sullivan said, the family had arranged to sell three-quarters of its crop to a local grain elevator for about $2 a bushel. The practice, called “forward contracting,” is increasingly common and helps insulate farmers from the market’s routine ups and downs.

On top of their contracted price, the Sullivans got the subsidy: $292,054 for that same corn, according to payment records.

Sullivan considers the LDP a godsend, given the uncertainties of farming. “Without it, Main Street Minnesota would have no money to keep the economy rolling,” he said.

Great, lots of numbers in there. A million bushels. $2 per bushel. And the hardest hitting of all: $292,054 in subsidies. Wow, that’s a lot of subsidies American taxpayers are shelling out.

Problem #1: The numbers cited are production and income based. How much did the family actually net in 2005? $292,054 sure seems like a lot of money in government subsidies, but relative to what? It looks like the Sullivans would have earned about $2 million had they 1 million acres at the market price of $2 per bushel.

Readers would be more sympathetic to the Sullivans if the inputs to produce those 1 million bushels cost them $2.25 million, netting them only $42,054 in income, and only being cash positive because of those government price supports. But what if their costs were only $200,000? Then the Sullivans would millionaires, netting $2.09 million in 2005.

Problem #2: How does the Sullivan family’s subsidy compare to the average subsidy for a corn farmer in Minnesota? How about compared to the U.S.? Is this the average corn production for a farm in Minnesota? A million bushels sounds like a lot to me. But is it? I mean, I probably only eat 200 or 300 bushels a year. (Statastico really likes corn.) Of course this doesn’t matter, because of problem #1: we don’t know anything about their income.

Next, the Washington Post produced a colorful map that makes Iowa look like price support central for corn. Sure, most counties receive more $10 million is price supports for corn. But how much corn does Iowa produce? Well if you’ve seen Field of Dreams or Children of the Corn, you won’t be surprised that Iowa produces 18.8% of all U.S. corn. So the map is colorful, but it tells a deceptively simple story.

If you want harder hitting numbers, head to Iowa State University. Chad E. Hart reports that according to USDA projections, almost half of the market value of Iowa’s 2005 corn crop was made up of government payments. Now we can start to understand why those nations struggling to boost agricultural export walked out of WTO trade talks.

I’ll leave you with some data based in part on what the Washington Post Business section reported on Friday. If you take a look at how much the following countries pay in government support to farmers in 2005, you’ll see that every European paid $293.20 in agriculture support. Americans paid al total of $43 billion, or $145.40 per person. In contrast, the per capita GDP in Sub-Saharan Africa was only $575 in 2002. Statastico does not advocate transferring those agricultural subsidies to development. These subsidies should, however, be reduced to zero over time. Give Africa and other poor farmers around the world a chance to export, an incentive to develop, and above all, a level playing field.