The problem with Hawken’s ‘base of the pyramid’ analysis is that he frames it almost entirely in terms of furthering the virulent and destructive growth of multinationals, and of capitalism in general. While there is no doubt that unchecked growth of MNCs has to some degree exploited, raped and pillaged emerging economies (see his Indonesian logging example), I don’t think such generalizations are helpful in framing the debate around the BOP. Not all MNCs create local value, but that shouldn’t discount the fact that some actually do.

Take Hawken’s example of Hindustan Lever. To be honest, I hate this example. When you mention the ‘fortune at the bottom of the pyramid’, it’s the first thing people bring up. And more often than not, the comments are similar to Hawkens’: “It is about this idea that we can open up the bottom of the pyramid to a flood of Western-made goods that will vault them into the lower to middle classes. But then what? What the poor want are rights, not foil packets.”

True. And ignoring for the fact that HLL produces the goods locally in India - creating jobs and income not only for the producers, but also for the shop owners and Shakti women who distribute the sachets – its easy to look at the example as a model for greedy Western companies to extract the little consumer surplus that people living in poverty have.

According to Hawken, this “smacks of colonialism and imperialism all over again.” In my opinion, however, viewing the BOP as a mass of easily exploitable people who should be protected from capitalism does the same.

In fact, the majority of successful companies that are producing new goods and services both valued and needed by poor people are not multinationals, but are indigenous to the countries in which they operate. We have found that multinationals that do succeed in these markets do so often by partnering and empowering local industry. We track hundreds of such examples in our Activity Database, and have written Case Studies on several.

The more we learn, the more we see the market at the ‘base of the pyramid’ as a source of innovation, job creation, and ultimately the source of civil society empowerment that Hawken refers to as the ‘Sustainable Civil Society’. After all, people not mired in poverty are much more likely to vote with their dollars and make their voices heard than those struggling daily to survive. In my mind, businesses developed by the Acumen Fund are more indicative of the entrepreneurship and economic potential waiting to be unleashed in these markets than the oft-mentioned HLL shampoo sachets. So while I’m thankful for the note of caution that Hawken strikes regarding the true motivations of capitalism, I think framing the BOP on those terms obscures its real potential.