Recent research on indigenous management has created the potential for more diverse, and innovative international business research (Holtbrugge, Narayanan and Wang, 2011). In this conceptual chapter, I extend the existing literature on indigenous management, with an integration into, bottom of pyramid country research such as India (Prahalad and Hart, 2004; London and Hart, 2004; Berger, 2014). In the 21st century, eighty percent of the world's population is still considered developing, i.e. having a per capita income of less than U.S. $1,000 dollars per year. Most of these are emerging. This chapter focuses on the importance of national institutions and their potential lessons for, bottom of pyramid countries. I argue that national institutions play a key role in indigenous management research, through their positive impact on the, development of bottom of pyramid countries.
TopIntroduction
Recent research in, indigenous management (Holtbrugge, Narayanan & Wang, 2011; Banerjee & Prasad, 2008) has created the potential for more diverse, and innovative international business research, based on the past successful experiences of, emerging markets. I believe that such lessons are especially critical for the world’s poorest countries, or bottom of pyramid countries (Prahalad & Hart, 2002). In this 21st century, eighty percent of the world’s population is still considered developing, i.e. having a per capita income of less than U.S. $1,000 dollars per year. According to UNCTAD (UNCTAD, 2007) technically these Bottom of Pyramid countries are distinguishable from the emerging economies where the per capita income is between $1,000 and $9,999 (UNCTAD, 2007; Cheng, Wang and Huang, 2009; Das, 2010). As the number of thus defined economies is extremely low, overall I will use the term Bottom-of-Pyramid countries (BOP) as equivalent to developing 1st stage emerging countries, though sometimes I need to make the distinction among the three types of economies developing, emerging and developed.
The 21st century seems to be a combination of globalization and anti-globalization and global debates about economic and social value (Moss, 2007; Orsi, 2008; Kershnar, 2008; Fletcher, 2009; Lara, 2009). Such social realities and public policy issues have also led to social science researchers addressing questions of, “anti-globalization” and what is the extent and limits to the economic and business elements of globalization and the future role of multinational corporations (Dunning, 1997; Graham, 2000; Eden & Lenway, 2001; Higgott, 1999; Prakah & Hart, 2000; Rodrik, 1997; Rugman, 2000; Vernon, 1998). This paper advocates that the stakeholder (Freeman) system of capitalisms is the best response to these anti-globalization movements