Globalization's Effects on the Global Poor - C. K. Prahalad

Подписаться 138 тыс.

Просмотров 107 тыс.

50% 1

Complete video at: fora.tv/fora/sh...
C. K. Prahalad, acclaimed professor of Corporate Strategy at the University of Michigan's Ross School of Business, discusses both good and bad effects of globalization on the global poor.
-----
"Globalization for Better or for Worse: Civilization and the Environment" with CK Prahalad at the 2007 Aspen Ideas Festival.
In this, its third year, Aspen Ideas Festival once again gathers scientists, artists, politicians, historians, educators, activists, and other great thinkers around some of the most important and fascinating ideas of our time. As these thinkers present their provocative ideas, they engage a sophisticated and highly motivated audience.
Coimbatore Krishnao Prahalad (b. 1941) was born in the town of Coimbatore in Tamil Nadu. He studied physics at the University of Madras (now Chenai), followed by work as a manager in a branch of the Union Carbide battery company, gaining experience of management, He continued his education in the US, earning a PhD from Harvard. He taught both in India and America, eventually joining the faculty of the University of Michigan 's Business School, where he holds the title of Paul and Ruth McCracken Distinguished University Professor of Corporate Strategy.
C. K. Prahalad is the author of many books, including "The Core Competence of the Corporation" (1990), "Competing for the Future" (with Gary Hamel, 1994), and "The Fortune at the Bottom of the Pyramid: Eradicating Poverty through Profits" (2004).

Опубликовано:

1 окт 2024

Ссылка:

Скачать:

Готовим ссылку...

Добавить в:

Мой плейлист

Посмотреть позже

Комментарии : 46

@1000101er 15 лет назад

The comments here indicate that no one has any idea what Prahalad is talking about. To summarize: In absolute terms globalization has been very good for the world's poor. There are 300 million fewer people living on less than a dollar a day today than [at some time in the past]. But though the poor are less poor, their income is not improving as rapidly as that of the urban upper classes. The bad part is that if the poor feel they are falling behind (in relative terms) there may be unrest.

@maybeorlando 12 лет назад

yes,although the poor in developing countries like china and india get a job,they are still living below the poverty line.the people are not well protected under the labour law due to the government do not want to upset those foregin company,and the disparity between the rich and poor is getting more serious than before=(

@sophiachristoplos3616 4 года назад

That’s not true. The bosses of factories earned more money, and they didn’t share that money with their own people in their own countries... just tax them

@KadirProDigital 11 лет назад

Arifin mençistira attigi golü ariyodum

@annthatsallshewrote 7 лет назад

When you trade with another country you must improve their lives. The problem with Africa for instance is that the wealthy came in and barely improved the livelihood of those people. Greed is evil.

@innkkmaann 14 лет назад

RIP Mr. Prahalad. Your fascinating work will continue to inspire scores.

@trakkaton 15 лет назад

And that's where the differentiation has to start. Solidarity should be global. Government should be local (concentration of power). Travel should be less global (pandemia, ecology). Information should be global. Division of labor should be local (crash resistance). Culture should be less global (diversity). And so on...

@trakkaton 15 лет назад

"Reasons?" are in brackets. "To me that sounds very selfish." Reasons? "And its full of restrictions." Restrictions are only possible once a concept is implemented. I'm talking about the concept, not the implementation. "Seems very exclusive." Reasons? "And in the end, only some can benefit while others will be left out in the cold." Reasons? Clarification: The amount of flights done to day is absolutely disatrous towards the enviroment. There is an e-car, but no e-plane.

@ramishsiddique7797 9 лет назад

Oww! This Corporate Sector CEO making mockery of 99%. Increasing mobility??? Good... But how??? He had nothing about this "How". Didn't discussed about dysfunctional global economy.Well they are saying these things for about a century. Inclusive growth??? How?

@trakkaton 15 лет назад

One? Are you joking? Venezuela: Hugo Chavez reduced poverty, analphabetism and improved the health care system. Wow, I wonder how narrow your horizon must be...

@cowgirlmoon 14 лет назад

@elisasue, The US has provided countless assistance to poor nations, unfortunately, selfish personal and political agenda has sometimes, overridden honest intent, in the leadership in those countries and ours, too. We can only do so much. We took Sadam Huessein out, but there are so many, with selfish intent, to take his place.... and even though I disagreed with starting that war, a chance for freedom has been presented. Now it is up to the people to decide if they want it.

@averageadvocate 14 лет назад

I completely agree with you. Yet, many people in developing countries don't actually have the freedom that we both think they ideally should. I guess if I didn't have the ability to have freedom to choose, even if I was a political activist working for that freedom, I would hope someone would provide assistance from the outside. So many are disparaging because of lack basic necessities, that are readily available in rich countries. I am not promoting socialism, only sustainable development.

@cowgirlmoon 14 лет назад

@EternalRhyme , I think it doesn't matter, people didn't want to live in Iraq, before Sadam took over and people sure as hell, didn't want to live in Iraq after. We had prosperity BECAUSE of our constitution. Now that the communists have moved into our government, our prosperity has been given to the bankers and big business. In the past, people came here, seeking freedom and the oportunity for fortune.

@averageadvocate 14 лет назад

@cowgirlmoon You might be right, this is what likely would happen if this was done politically. Yet, does that give us justification to ignore the poor, and take from them? If we can't at least try to be equal economically then I think I would prefer to be on the rich side, yet you are welcome to be on the poor side. That way we are sure to have a balance so that the wealth isn't spread out. Not to be rude. Its easy to dismiss this, as "avoiding socialism" when we aren't the ones starving.

@cowgirlmoon 14 лет назад

@EternalRhyme, My last sentance simply means that for at least the last 224 years, people have not exactly, been beating a path to the imigration office, hoping to live in Iraq.

@cowgirlmoon 14 лет назад

@elisasue I think the most important thing to remember, is "freedom of choice." Each culture should be allowed the freedom to choose how they wish to be governed and if they choose wisely and can hold true to their values, they will succeed in ways that others might never understand. Whenever a government dictates to it's people, instead of the people, dictating to their government, you will find the resources and economic wealth, held tightly, in the hands of the ruling elite.

@irajkhodadoost 13 лет назад

@1000101er Good points! Good or bad is irrelevant; globalization is inevitable considering the communications available from the airplane to the internet. However, aggressive and unbridled Capitalism (same as the failed Communism) has led to social upheaval and extremes of wealth and poverty where some one thousand families (primarily in the US) control over 20% of world's resources whereas, the bottom 20% are homeless and starving of hunger. Such extremes must be dealt with soon.