Iqbal Qadir is best known as the founder of GrameenPhone, which is now the phone company with the largest number of users in Bangladesh. In the 1990s, Qadir formed a global consortium and launched GrameenPhone in 1997 to provide mobile phone services in Bangladesh. Its innovative plan allows local entrepreneurs, mainly women, to buy mobile phones with loans from Grameen Bank, a pioneer in microfinance, and then rent them to neighbors. Today, GrameenPhone has nearly 1 million direct users, in addition to the phones of 30,000 entrepreneurs providing dial-up access to 50 million people. Kadir is now a professor of public policy at the Harvard Kennedy School of Government in Cambridge, Massachusetts. In an interview with Gardiner Morse of HBR and follow-up emails, Qadir believes that investing in local entrepreneurs, rather than providing assistance to their governments, maybe the best hope for the world's developing economies. 

 If GrameenPhone is so successful, why hasn't it been widely replicated? 

 A good idea is not achieved overnight; it took nearly five years for GrameenPhone from concept to release. In most developing countries, it takes months to establish a new company, and years to obtain a mobile phone license, not to mention the difficulty of forming an administrative department and attracting funds. In many countries, government bureaucracies resist commercial activities that can redistribute power. Vested interests protect public and private monopolies and quasi-monopolies. There are systemic obstacles and huge barriers to entry. 

 Also, remember that the company will not copy directly anywhere. The specific features are. The question is not, why is GrameenPhone not copied? That is, can the functionality of the GrameenPhone model be replicated in other environments? Its most important feature is not the telephone system itself, but a small loan, which can mobilize large numbers of individual entrepreneurs to meet unmet needs. How can the 

 GrameenPhone be used? 

 This is an example. I have been discussing a new way to feed people in developing countries with Dean Kamen, the inventor of the Segway scooter. Dean is redesigning the Stirling engine originally developed 200 years ago to generate about 1 kilowatt of electricity, enough to illuminate 60 small homes. Now, instead of saying that Westinghouse is building a 200-megawatt power plant in Kampala, Uganda’s capital, imagine 200,000 micro-entrepreneurs, each buying Stirling engines in their respective communities in rural Uganda and selling one kilowatt of electricity. 

 Explain the benefits. 

 Both methods involve selling equipment from the United States to obtain electricity in Uganda. But only the second one empowers the entrepreneurs below and decentralizes economic influence. Historically, this technological empowerment has contributed to the economic and political climate of today’s advanced economies. Waterwheels, glasses, watches, and other productivity-enhancing tools put power in the hands of European entrepreneurs and businessmen in the Middle Ages, creating a countervailing economic force against coercive authorities. In response to business needs and the growing economic impact, the authorities made concessions, leading to major reforms in checks and balances such as property rights, contract enforcement, and separation of justice and administration, creating fertile ground for capitalism and democracy. Poor countries need similar economic and political changes. 

 But isn't the lack of capital a real obstacle to economic growth in developing countries? 

 The real question is where did the capital go. The capital given to entrepreneurs creates employment opportunities, economic growth, and ultimately improves governance. The capital given to predatory government bureaucracies will only strengthen centralization and strong vested interests. 

 Foreign aid to the governments of developing countries is based on traditional "wisdom": Poor countries continue to benefit from the capital of rich countries more than aspirations rather than facts. Rich countries "want" this kind of assistance to achieve geopolitical goals, support the sale of its equipment and consulting services, and alleviate poverty. The problem is that helping the government to fulfill the first two wishes may jeopardize the third. However, supporting small entrepreneurs to promote democracy will ultimately help realize all three aspirations. How should 

 Do companies cooperate with developing countries? 

 Promote trade. Enterprises create and maintain entrepreneurs, and they will put pressure on the government to adopt policies that are beneficial to enterprises. It creates jobs, promotes innovation, and gives people a political voice. 

 Consider the difference between providing the US $ 500 million in aid to the Kenyan government and buying clothes in Kenya (allowing 500 different entrepreneurs to earn the US $ 1 million in profit each). By establishing the same foreign exchange reserves, the latter created more employment opportunities and produced a greater economic domino effect, combining the interests of the government with the prosperity of the country through taxes and decentralizing power to a large number of companies - -All This has promoted democracy and growth. 4,444 companies can involve citizens of poor countries in commercial activities. First, don't just sell things: open factories in poor countries and create jobs. Development and sales allow citizens to produce more technology; sales of productivity tools, such as cell phones and generators, instead of soft drinks and cigarettes. Second, working with small entrepreneurs is becoming more and more possible because they are making connections through information technology. Third, acquisitions. Data processing and call centers can be transferred to poor countries. You can buy supplies and furniture there. Why can't big companies buy office furniture made in Africa? Why should American office furniture be the same and so boring? What are the benefits of enterprises? Isn't your business ultimately profitable? 

 These are all profitable moves. It is always profitable to reduce costs and expand the market. Locating production facilities in poor countries, cooperating with local entrepreneurs, and purchasing goods and services there can reduce costs. Because buying in poor countries will expand their purchasing power, companies in rich countries should urge their governments to remove barriers to imports from poor countries for their own benefit. All these actions will expand the market. Focusing only on selling products to developing countries would be counterproductive. Unless productivity and purchasing power in developing countries increase, companies in rich countries will not be able to increase sales or profits there.

Companies can not ignore broader contexts. The profits must be seen as a means, not the end. I put grameenphone with him. 

 If capitalism is based on maximizing profits, why is the end? 

 I have not seen capitalism in a limited manner.  The $ 44 million grameenphone, $ 44 million, has allowed the company to expand its service. The benefit attracts investors and allows former investors to go. As a result, the profits show the project, expand the service and continue to reward investors. Adam Smith and the believers argued that maximization automatically contributes to common social goodness under certain conditions. In other words, the maximization of profits can be a form.  

 Even if it builds things, corporate administrators are forced to look at them as the end. 

 It is because it focuses on a short period of time. Increasingly, they will look for profits as a means. Remember, companies face a set of evolution standards that affect their behavior. These standard changes depend on citizen knowledge and organizational capacity.  For example, after acting through government directly through the government, the company may not ignore the damage that may be causing the environment. Similarly, citizen organizations are responsible for new local technologies, and we are looking for a global scale, more successful labor standards, and more socially responsible actions. These types of companies' demand increased and are more carefully careful and focus on the search for victory. 

 Companies will find, I have one more society than they fought to maximize their benefits that are forced to adapt to new and stricter social and environmental standards. I think more income occurs than when it meets the needs. When taking steps to address social needs, they mean that the profit end: the general social good.