In the context of developing countries, mainly in subsaharian Africa, a large number of the population do not have access some products because of their lack of financial means because they are poor! They can not afford to buy food in a supermarket because the price is high! I can see them as non-consumer according to Clayton Christensen's definition of disruptive innovation. Do you have about other publication that show the relationship between poverty and innovation? High-end market and low-end market...
French version
Dans le contexte des pays en développement, la plupart des personnes ne peuvent pas accéder à certains produits faute de moyens financiers parce qu'elles sont pauvres ! Cette situation me semble correspodre aux caractéristiques de la définition des innovations de rupture selon clayton Christensen. Avez vous des références à partager
Article Pauvreté et la théorie des innovations de rupture en contexte africain
Great question. I wonder if we should't reframe it slightly. Isn't poverty dependent at least in part on property rights and on access to the equity in those rights to fund application of mere ideas into funded (financed) innovation? Disruptive innovation a la Clayton Christensen may actually assume the presence surrounding it of a system of financing that makes the ideas have access to investors seeking to maximize their future earnings. Is the same system available or present surrounding innovation in Africa? Furthermore, is it feasible that the finance through Venture Capital system available in the West may actually hold innovators hostage to their dependence upon having to fund their idea inside that system? In contrast, could it rather be that in Africa a different system altogether may emerge or has already been emerging, one that is verified in innovation and inventions across humankind's history already? If we take solely the Selden v Ford patent infringement case which ultimately Henry Ford won (for an analysis from an IP law perspective see here Article The 'Overly-Broad' Selden Patent, Henry Ford and Development...
), did poverty impact Ford's invention abilities at all? What did Ford do to start his Ford Motor Company, attempting to convince banks to give him loans several times and failing? He tried to finance his vision building an enterprise based on bank loans that were initially refused. The system is based on the funding of applied ideas by financial asset holders with the goal of maximizing reproduction of invested capital. We are trying to point to the many failures in the West. Understanding those thoroughly may help answer little by little the Africa question by inductive and deductive reasoning combined. A great start by far predating a Clayton Christensen framework of innovation is in a great classic article herehttps://www.jstor.org/stable/2706546?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
and subsequent improvements and on Grieco's timeless piece. My immediate take is that local capital formation in Africa shall fuel innovation there much better than the dependency trap fueled by continued purchasing there of Western products and services. In support of my argument I use anecdotal evidence on the disruptive patent on cone over cone continuous variable transmission for automobiles (1923, by Aurel Persu) and how the West was interested to buy the patent to simply kill its use. That in effect led to the technology not being developed commercially and fully implemented for several decades. Thus I'm willing to bet that poverty is _not_ an independent variable in the original question. It may be a dependent variable after all, based essentially on a willingness to maintain dependency by those benefitting from it from outside Africa. I'm interested to see where this question is going further.
Great question. I wonder if we should't reframe it slightly. Isn't poverty dependent at least in part on property rights and on access to the equity in those rights to fund application of mere ideas into funded (financed) innovation? Disruptive innovation a la Clayton Christensen may actually assume the presence surrounding it of a system of financing that makes the ideas have access to investors seeking to maximize their future earnings. Is the same system available or present surrounding innovation in Africa? Furthermore, is it feasible that the finance through Venture Capital system available in the West may actually hold innovators hostage to their dependence upon having to fund their idea inside that system? In contrast, could it rather be that in Africa a different system altogether may emerge or has already been emerging, one that is verified in innovation and inventions across humankind's history already? If we take solely the Selden v Ford patent infringement case which ultimately Henry Ford won (for an analysis from an IP law perspective see here Article The 'Overly-Broad' Selden Patent, Henry Ford and Development...
), did poverty impact Ford's invention abilities at all? What did Ford do to start his Ford Motor Company, attempting to convince banks to give him loans several times and failing? He tried to finance his vision building an enterprise based on bank loans that were initially refused. The system is based on the funding of applied ideas by financial asset holders with the goal of maximizing reproduction of invested capital. We are trying to point to the many failures in the West. Understanding those thoroughly may help answer little by little the Africa question by inductive and deductive reasoning combined. A great start by far predating a Clayton Christensen framework of innovation is in a great classic article herehttps://www.jstor.org/stable/2706546?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
and subsequent improvements and on Grieco's timeless piece. My immediate take is that local capital formation in Africa shall fuel innovation there much better than the dependency trap fueled by continued purchasing there of Western products and services. In support of my argument I use anecdotal evidence on the disruptive patent on cone over cone continuous variable transmission for automobiles (1923, by Aurel Persu) and how the West was interested to buy the patent to simply kill its use. That in effect led to the technology not being developed commercially and fully implemented for several decades. Thus I'm willing to bet that poverty is _not_ an independent variable in the original question. It may be a dependent variable after all, based essentially on a willingness to maintain dependency by those benefitting from it from outside Africa. I'm interested to see where this question is going further.
Dear Shamba Patrick Bakengela , Prahalad's theory 'bottom of the pyramid' is maybe an interesting one, how to deal with poverty and disruption of that phenomenon. But I don't think Africa is poor. There are a lot of resources, e.g, in the Congo. What is lacking is the capacity to use these resources and the political situation in most of the African countries. See what is going on now in Rwanda, because of a certain policy and use of the available resources and capacity building (knowledge). So if you look at disruptive innovation to influence poverty, I think you have to have a broader discussion.
Dear Rudi Darson thank you very much for your suggestion about Prahalad's theory and your comments about the situation in Africa. My observation is that in the middle of 1970, the main reason that was developed to explain the bad econgo ic situation of the Democratic Republic of Congo was the lack of capacities. In the middle of the 1980, the number of people educated abroad and locally (in good universities) increased but the economic situation deteriorated!
i don't know how to explain the causality between the capacity of using resources and the development!
my idea is that disruptive innovation is understood as process by which a product or service takes root initially in simple applications at the bottom of a market and then relentlessly moves up market, eventually displacing established competitors.
almost 80% of population in Africa are underserved and do not have access to some products or services! How to make these products and services affordable and accessible? I think this is what disruptive innovation will do. By doing this, disrg innovation can solve the problem of poverty in my understanding! What do you think ?
Dear Shamba Patrick Bakengela , maybe it is a bit confusing to mention Prahalad (‘bottom of the pyramid’) in relation to disruptive innovation (Christensen), but I mention him because you talked about poverty and Prahalad theory is dealing with that. And indeed if you point your effort to the bottom of the pyramid (poor people) you will be able to help solve poverty.
One of the disruptive innovations in Africa I think is Mpesa, it sidelined the banks because it was a service for poor farmers who couldn’t qualify to open a bank account to receive money via transfer. Mpesa made that possible, farmers didn't need a bank anymore. And not only poor people are using Mpesa now, even Western companies are trying to develop equivalents of it. What I wanted to say is that there are possibilities at the bottom of the pyramid, there is a place to look if you want to create some disruption and help lessen poverty.
As for the argument about capacity, people with high education do not have to have the right capacity. If you need people with knowledge of technology and you are training people to acquire knowledge about anthropology, sociology, philosophy, theology, they will not help to develop the country in the direction you want or expect. If you need programmers, you must train programmers and you must train them adequately.
Dear Shamba Patrick Bakengela , see e.g. Woelabs in Togo that has created the first 3D-printer solely from electronic waste (e-waste) and that has the ability to disrupt printing in Africa. But, you see, the knowledge is there: https://www.myafricais.com/woelab_3dprinting. And for further disruptive behavior in Africa, see https://edition.cnn.com/2017/11/16/africa/gallery/africa-innovations-that-could-change-the-world/index.html
Dear Rudi Darson this is a great example "Woelabs in Togo". Thank you for sharing! Very much appreciated! The problem seems to be with the definition of disruprive innovation. Using Clayton Christensen definition: disruptive innovation is not a breakthrough innovation! It is a process of making a product affordable and accessible for non-consumers. I do not know if the 3D printers in Togo did make it possible for the low-end of the market (non-consumer of 3D printers in Africa to get access to this new product ?
if the disruptive innovation can make it possible for non-consumer (the bottom of the pyramid) to get access to new product that is affordable and accessible! I think that we can solve the problem of poverty in Africa! Dear Adrian S. Petrescu Ph.D. J.D. How to make product affordable? Do you think that it is about getting access to finance? This is a big challenge for entrepreneurs in Africa mainly those evolving in the informal economy ( the bottom of the pyramid) ...
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Econ
- Innovation Economics
- Innovation