A matter of age

The developed world is rapidly aging — faster than the developing world. In an article in Foreign Affairs, Peter G Peterson, Chairman of the Council on Foreign Relations, the Institute for International Economics, explained why that should be a matter of serious concern. A ‘‘graying first world’’ is bound to come in the way of the US fulfilling its ‘‘manifest responsibilities’’ in a ‘‘newly dangerous world’’, he said.

The US has traditionally relied on the material assistance of other developed countries in pursuing ‘‘global projects of common interest’’; Washington continues to rely on their help for executing its War on Terror. But the ‘‘fiscal costs of aging’’ and the ‘‘accelerating population decline’’ projected in nearly all developed societies may render them incapable of helping America play superpower in the future.

Peterson pointed to the UN’s list of the 12 most populous nations. In 1950, this list included six nations from the ‘‘first world’’ (US, Japan, Germany, UK, Italy and France). In the UN projection for 2050, only one ‘‘first world’’ country remains. He quoted Samuel Huntington: ‘‘the juxtaposition of a rapidly growing people of one culture and a slowly growing or stagnant people of another culture generates pressure for economic and/or political adjustments in both societies’’.

And with perfectly cruel timing, The New York Times exclaimed over ‘‘young workers’’ who are ‘‘changing India’’.

The paper roamed Mumbai, Kolkata and Patna and came away with images of a ‘‘demographic bubble’’ vigorously transforming Indian politics and society. Fifty-four per cent of India’s people are now under 25. They have different desires and dreams. But nearly all sharply criticised religious extremism, reported the NYT. And most expected India to become a leading economic power in their lifetime.

Free to hope?

India and Pakistan — is the hope fading? Is that a backsliding in Kashmir? There has been some nervousness abroad on both counts recently. This week, The Economist concluded that while the India-Pakistan dialogue may have survived the change in government in India, the talks between Delhi and the ‘‘moderate separatists’’ in Kashmir may well be a casualty. It pointed to the rift in the Hurriyat. Hardliner Syed Ali Shah Geelani has walked away with a new party and the moderates are reduced to a rump.

But in an essay in Time, writer Mohsin Hamid felt free to hope at last. The crisis is over in Pakistan, he said. The country no longer seems close to economic breakdown, or on the brink of war with India. It is no more as riven by extremist forces. So now that the imperative to suspend all disbelief and support Musharraf is no longer as pressing, Hamid hoped Musharraf would do something no dictator has done before.

He will let ex-Citibanker Shaukat Aziz govern the country and revive both democracy and the economy. And Aziz, above all, will make a lasting peace with India, ‘‘even at the cost of painful compromises’’. Because without such a peace, ‘‘Pakistan will always be ruled, in one form or another, by men in uniform’’.

From top to BOP

The Economist profiled C K Prahalad for thinking ‘‘there can be a win-win relationship between business and the poor’’ and for writing a hugely controversial and hugely acclaimed book that builds on that premise.

Prahalad is poised to make BOP a more compelling acronym than CSR. BOP is shorthand for ‘‘bottom of the pyramid’’, CSR refers to the ‘‘corporate social responsibility’’ programmes of many large companies. In his new book, Prahalad — who, according to the Economist, previously co-authored ‘‘perhaps the best business book in the 1990s’’ — argues that ‘‘If we stop thinking of the poor as victims or as a burden and start recognising them as resilient and creative entrepreneurs and value-conscious consumers, a whole new world of opportunity will open up’’.

He argues that there are huge potential profits to be made from serving the 4 billion-5 billion people living on under $2 a day. But first, big firms must re-engineer products. They must make them available in affordable units — witness the success of shampoo sachets in India — and rethink distribution networks.

Big firms, says Prahalad, are willing to be persuaded. But the challenge, said the Economist, will be to persuade development experts to support a profit-driven strategy.