Podcasts about prosperity paradox

Our guest in this Poised for Exit episode is Ryan Haag, who has been a financial advisor for over 20 years. Ryan has spent his career working with family businesses and a variety of entrepreneurs, learning a great deal about the pitfalls they face as they navigate their lives from start up to retirement. So many of the experiences he's faced with clients mirror those of others. Business owners seem to have a lot of the same problems, the most common of which is answering the question:  "how do I spend my time once my business is sold?"Ryan observed that we're in a time that's unmatched in history, where people have never had more money, but also have never had more stress. "The Prosperity Paradox" they call it. Couple that with statistics on how often a business owner regrets their decision to sell, and you've got a lot of unhappiness on both ends of the spectrum!Owner's need to determine what their ideal vision is for their life in every stage. Where do they see themselves living, traveling, working and feeling fulfilled? Each stage makes up about a third of one's life, so it's pretty important to grapple with each one in advance!  When it comes to retirement (the last third!), Ryan said there are three phases within that period itself: "Go-Go, Slow-Go, and No-Go".  You can imagine what each entails.The world we live in has us drowning in information and starving for wisdom, he said. Not sure there's been a statement more true of our times! Ryan says that the ultimate goal he tries to help his clients achieve is what he calls "funded contentment". Knowing what you want to do with your life after business, and having enough resources to do it.What does that look like for you? Listen to the episode here!Connect with Julie Keyes, Keyestrategies LLCFounder, Consultant, Author, Pod-caster and Instructor

You'll love this episode. Inspired by Joshua Becker at becomingminimalist.com

There have been many books on development written and cited by academics from around the world. We will try to focus on those listed within the syllabi of respected universities. It is important for the reader to understand that StimPack is new in its mission to lead development efforts in Haiti. This is an audacious mission considering the many brilliant minds that have preceded us. However, our approach is far more humble than it might initially appear. We intend to stand on the shoulders of our experienced predecessors, leveraging their experimentation and resulting wisdom to move this work forward. StimPack also realizes the value of development work done outside of Haiti that may have significant value within it. This article will work to apply to Haiti the ideas of the late Clayton M. Christensen of Harvard Business School and his co-authors Efosa Ojomo and Karen Dillon as taught in their book The Prosperity Paradox. We hope you will find this a valuable exercise. This will not be a summary or thorough book report. We have instead extracted a few points we find relevant to Haiti.

หนังสือ The Prosperity Paradox: How Innovation Can Lift Nations Out of Poverty ของ Clayton M. Christensen, Efosa Ojomo and Karen Dillon - เมื่อนักการจัดการระดับโลกได้มารังสรรค์การเรียนรู้เรื่องของนวัตกรรมจะสามารถยกระดับชีวิตขึ้นมาได้หรือไม่ - ตลาดรับรู้ว่าการลงทุนเป็นส่วนหนึ่งที่สำคัญต่อภาคเศรษฐกิจ แต่ในความเป็นจริงแล้วเราจะลงทุนไม่ได้ถ้าไม่มีสินค้าหรือบริการ - ทวีปแอฟริกาหลายประเทศกำลังประสบปัญหาเรื่องการคิดค้นสิ่งใหม่ ๆ แต่แน่นอนว่าการเห็นประเทศเกิดใหม่ก็ย่อมมีนิมิตหมายที่ดีเช่นกัน - ถ้าหากว่าเราต้องการให้ทุกประเทศมีความมั่งคั่ง สิ่งนั้นย่อมเกิดความโกลาหลต่อระบบการเงิน เพราะระบบทุนนิยมออกแบบมาเพื่อมีประเทศที่ร่ำรวยและยากจนเสมอ - ทั้งนี้ การจะจัดระบบใหม่ให้ประเทศที่ยากจนกลับมาร่ำรวยได้ อาจจะมีหนทางเพียงทางเดียวนั่นคือการคิดริเริ่มในการสร้างสิ่งที่มาแก้ปัญหาให้กับคนทั่วโลก ซึ่งสิ่งนี้เป็นโจทย์ที่ยากตลอดมา

Almost every entrepreneur dreams of becoming a unicorn — a startup that reaches a $1 billion valuation. But to date in Africa there are only seven companies that have achieved that distinction. Andela, led by co-founder and CEO Jeremy Johnson, is one of them. Hear how and why Andela became such a success story and gain insights on disruptive innovation from Efosa Ojomo, director of Global Prosperity at the Christensen Institute and co-author of The Prosperity Paradox.Andela is a Nigerian company that began with a tightly focused mission to train software engineers to compete on a world stage. “The original problem statement,” Johnson explains, “is that brilliance is evenly distributed. Opportunity isn't. How do we move towards a world where those things are a little bit more uniform, where someone's potential in life has less to do with who their parents were and where they were born, and more to do with the impact they're able to create?” Andela quickly realized that the most valuable part of the business wasn't training the talent, but making it accessible. So, to connect all that brilliance with opportunities, Andela created a global talent marketplace to help companies simplify the process of hiring and working with talent from all over the world. This “market-making innovation” — creating an ecosystem for “non-consumers” — is what Efosa Ojoma believes made all the difference to Andela's success. In the case of Andela, he explains, “The brilliant talents in Nigeria are non-consumers of opportunity. They just happen to be born in a country that could not leverage what they would give to the world. Andela is creating an infrastructure that connects them to that opportunity so that they can add value to the world.” And they're doing the same for companies that face barriers to recruiting the best talent. According to Ojoma, “Unlocking this double-sided non-consumption unlocks so much value and the world becomes a better place as a result.”While many companies suffered due to the pandemic, it actually helped Andela by reinforcing the power of remote work. In just four years the company expanded from seven to 120 countries, and its leaders realized that the tricky part of global talent was the infrastructure, or lack thereof. So, they spent time and energy building a supply chain to make it easy for people to work together between countries, covering issues from payroll to compliance to taxes. “The primary driver of the business was companies coming to us and saying, ‘We want to be able to work with great talent. Can you help us? And can you make that easy? And because you trained them, we would like to work with you,'” Johnson explains.Listen to Johnson and Ojoma discuss Andela's meteoric growth, regulatory hurdles, the role of data, and how looking at your product through the lens of market creation can unlock a business's true potential.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Overview: Today, we're going to talk about Yoco, the South African Point-Of-Sale FinTech company. We'll explore the story across the following areas: South African payments context Yoco's early history Yoco's Product & monetization strategy Yoco's Competitive positioning & potential exit options Overall outlook. This episode was recorded on Apr 9, 2023 Companies discussed: Yoco, Square, Flutterwave, PayFast, PayThru, PayU, DPO, Flutterwave, Paystack, Stripe, Ikhokha, MTN, Safaricom, Zapper, Visa, Interswitch, Nedbank, ABSA, FNB (First National Bank South Africa) & Wave Business concepts discussed: Merchants solutions, Points-of-Sale devices, SME Lending & hardware and software bundling Conversation highlights: (01:30) - Yoco context (07:30) - Africa / SA payments context (23:11) - Yoco Founding Story and Founders' background (40:45) - Fundraising and Growth (51:52) - Partnerships,  Acquisitions, and Team (59:20) - Key metrics (1:02:16) - Product Strategy (1:19:42) - Monetization strategy (1:30:50) - Competition (1:36:42) - Options for exit (1:49:06) - Bankole's overall thoughts and outlook (1:57:01) - Olumide's overall thoughts and outlook (2:07:14) - Recommendations and small wins Olumide's recommendations & small wins: Recommendation: I released my book called Firedom = FIRE (Financial Independence, Retire Early) + Freedom = personal finance and financial independence book. It was an incredible journey to get it out and I'm very excited about it. I think many people will really enjoy it. You can buy the audiobook, ebook or print here. Here's an excerpt from the full blog post announcement: Book Creation context: Around the end of 2022, I made a new friend when I met Samon, we instantly got along because we shared a lot in common: African immigrants who moved to America/Europe, worked in Management consulting and are in love with personal finance. We decided to embark on a project together and write a financial independence book we are calling Firedom!   What is Firedom book about? Living life intentionally + Personal finance + Financial independence + Personal Development + Freedom + Exploring your own unique path in life + Life adventures of two African immigrants Who is it for? Underdogs, outsiders, expats, nomads, minorities, immigrants interested in : Living their lives more intentionally to achieve Financial Independence Learning about people's life stories (turning points, challenges, flameouts, etc) Changing their mindset and psychological relationship with wealth Recommendation: Owl City - Unbelievable. I love the song so much because it reminds me of adventures and experiences growing up  Recommendation: Good Hair - Documentary by Chris Rock. Good shit. Reduced my ignorance level about African women hair Small win: Virgin Voyages cruise - First ever cruise. Very cool. Small win: No scrubs Karaoke on cruise. Too much fun. It was an experience. Bankole's recommendations & small wins: Recommendation: Economist Article on Nitrogen & Asake - 2:30 Small win: Moderating a panel at the Harvard Business School Africa Business Conference Other content: The Prosperity Paradox by Efosa Ojomo, Karen Dillon, Clay Christensen, Adyen pricing page & PayFast pricing page Listeners: We'd love to hear from you. Email info@afrobility.com with feedback! Founders & Operators: We'd love to hear about what you're working on, email us at info@afrobility.com Investors: It would be great to link up with you. Contact us at info@afrobility.com Join our substack mailing list where discuss more & find all episodes on Afrobility.com

Global poverty is one of the world's most vexing problems. For decades, we've assumed smart, well-intentioned people will eventually be able to change the economic trajectory of poor countries. From education to healthcare, and infrastructure to eradicating corruption, too many solutions rely on trial and error. Today's guest reveals a paradox at the heart of our approach to solving poverty. While noble, our current solutions are not producing consistent results and in some cases, have exacerbated the problem. At least twenty countries that have received billions of dollars worth of aid are poorer now. The right kind of innovation not only builds companies—but also builds countries. The Prosperity Paradox identifies the limits of common economic development models, which tend to be top-down efforts. It offers a new framework for economic growth based on entrepreneurship and market-creating innovation. It's a pleasure to welcome the co-author of The Prosperity Paradox: How Innovation Can Lift Nations Out of Poverty, Efosa Ojomo. Find Efosa here: http://efosaojomo.com

Efosa Ojomo believes that market-creation plays a key role in economic development, but he didn't come to that conclusion in a usual way. He ran a nonprofit for 10 years and realized the limitations of his model. After that, he closed the doors of the organization and switched his focus to researching and writing about global prosperity with the Clayten Christensen Institute. He joins the show to talk about the idea of a “Prosperity Paradox” and to give us a vision for how innovation helps lift nations out of poverty.

Development is one of the major challenges of our time. Unfortunately, it's often approached in a way that does more harm than good. Efosa Ojomo has a better solution, and he's here today to share it. Efosa is the leader of the Global Prosperity Research Group at the Clayton Christensen Institute for Disruptive Innovation, the co-author of The Prosperity Paradox, and the author of the upcoming book, The Prosperity Process. In this episode, Efosa explains how his first foray in the development space (building wells in Nigeria) catalyzed a journey of discovery which led him to realize that, in order to truly change the world, we need to implement pull strategies instead of push strategies and focus on market creating innovations. He shares some examples of what these innovations look like and we discuss what it takes to be a market creating innovator, how regulation impacts innovation, a new way to think about corruption, and more! Make sure to tune in today.   Key Points From This Episode:   •  The lesson Efosa learned through his first foray in the development world. •  Definitions of the three types of innovation that Efosa and his co-authors explain in depth in their book, The Prosperity Paradox. •  Efosa shares the story of Mo Ibrhaim to highlight the power of market creating innovations. •  Push versus pull development strategies and the problem with the former. •  The story of Indomie Noodles as an example of the huge amount of change that can be made through the implementation of a pull strategy. •  How a proliferation of government agencies negatively impacts a country's entrepreneurial ecosystem. •  The type of person who is best suited to be a leader in the market creating innovation space. •  Aid for developing countries: how the approach needs to change. •  Efosa explains why good laws are not enough to create thriving communities. •  Key factors that resulted in the rise and fall of Venice. •  How Efosa believes we should be tackling the issue of corruption. •  A tribute to Clayton Christenson. •  The Prosperity Process; Efosa's future book.     Links Mentioned in Today's Episode:   http://www.apple.com (Efosa Ojomo) https://twitter.com/EfosaOjomo (Efosa Ojomo on Twitter) https://www.christenseninstitute.org/global-prosperity/ (Global Prosperity Research Group at the Clayton Christensen Institute for Disruptive Innovation) https://www.amazon.com/Prosperity-Paradox-Innovation-Nations-Poverty/dp/0062851829 (The Prosperity Paradox) https://www.britannica.com/biography/Mo-Ibrahim (Mo Ibrahim) https://www.hurstpublishers.com/book/gambling-on-development/ (Gambling on Development) https://www.linkedin.com/in/yuen-yuen-ang-35a93920/ (Yuen Yuen Ang) https://www.amazon.com/Why-Nations-Fail-Origins-Prosperity/dp/0307719227 (Why Nations Fail) https://www.amazon.com/Innovators-Dilemma-Revolutionary-Change-Business/dp/0062060244 (The Innovator's Dilemma) https://www.amazon.com/Innovators-Solution-Creating-Sustaining-Successful/dp/1422196577 (The Innovator's Solution) https://www.chartercitiesinstitute.org/ (Charter Cities Institute) https://www.facebook.com/Charter-Cities-Institute-424204888015721/ (Charter Cities Institute on Facebook) https://twitter.com/CCIdotCity (Charter Cities Institute on Twitter)

We explained the principles of the prosperity paradox in Part 1. In Part 2 we visited the ideas of corruption, governance and infrastructure (the previous two episodes). But so far we haven't criticised the book, and that's what we're doing in Part 3. Is it reasonable to suggest market creating innovations as an alternative to digging wells in Nigeria? What are the other factors that helped South Korea go from receiving development aid to giving aid to other countries? And can we really talk about the USA as a prosperous country? All this and more is discussed by the show hosts: Hajer ben Charrada, Amin Zayani and our guests Mehdi Fekari and Hazem Krichene. You can interact with us on our platform for Tunisian Diaspora: www.diasporainaction.org Follow us on Instagram and LinkedIn

Guest: Xhanti Payi | Economist & Founder  at Nascence Advisory See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

We explained the principles of the prosperity paradox in Part 1 (the previous episode). In Part 2 we covered: corruption, good laws and infrastructure. Which one of these three pillars is necessary to achieve prosperity? How did South Korea go from a country where gangs pocketed protection money to suing the president and jailing her over corruption charges? What made it possible for a company in Nigeria to build better infrastructure faster than the government? and why can't Tunisia prosper despite a brand new constitution? All this and more is discussed by the show hosts: Hajer ben Charrada, Amin Zayani and our guest Mehdi Fekari. You can interact with us on our platform for Tunisian Diaspora: www.diasporainaction.org Follow us on Instagram and LinkedIn

How was it possible for South Korea to go from a development aid receiver to donor within a few decades? What can we learn from the first African telecom company Celltell? Is a great constitution a must to develop Tunisia? We visit these questions and more in this podcast, to extract lessons relevant to Tunisians and Maghrebis who want to contribute to development in our countries. The Prosperity Paradox is a brilliant book with a key idea: to effectively fight poverty, don't fight poverty, but rather generate prosperity through market-creating innovations and entire nations will be lifted out of poverty. Diaspora in Action members and show hosts Hajer ben Charrada and Amin Zayani together with our dear guest and active member from Morocco Mehdi Fekari will take you through the ideas in this book in three parts: Part 1: Market creating innovations with examples from Korea, Japan, Africa and Mexico. What can we learn from Toyota's driving schools, Henry Ford's model T and Singer's sewing machines? Part 2: Corruption, good laws and infrastructure. Is a shiny new constitution a requirement for development? Does investing in infrastructure create prosperity? Part 3: Addressing feedback, questions and comments from you, our dear listeners. You can interact with us on our platform for Tunisian Diaspora: www.diasporainaction.org Follow us on Instagram and LinkedIn

Everyone thinks the world, in terms of economics, has never been worse... Oh... It has...We measure wealth over time in terms of STANDARD OF LIVING, not the monopoly money we call the USD or whatever other fiat currency you want to use. Entrepreneurs are responsible parties for the "wealth" we enjoy today. I shared this amazing video from Kite & Key Media and I suggest you share it with your friends and family: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9T4UfXxYvqsText KKRS to: 713-528-8219Telegram Community: https://t.me/killbiggerTruth Social: @kkeeganTwitter: https://twitter.com/kylekeeganradioCheck out https://keeganradio.comJoin the discussion at https://www.thefastlaneforum.com/community/threads/kaks-kill-bigger-radio-show.95326/ DISCLAIMER! I am NOT your financial advisor or business consultant. Do YOUR OWN research. I advocate heavily that you should make intelligent and informed decisions based on YOUR OWN understanding or hire someone that does this for you. Don't take me out of context and make dumb decisions. Always consider YOUR OWN SITUATION before implementing strategies shared on KKRS. When in doubt, remember Kyle is conservative and will always choose to live another day over imprudent “YOLO” decisions. The Kyle Keegan Radio Show and iTalk Media Network™️ are © Atlas Southwest LLC.

Talent is evenly distributed, but opportunity is not. This big idea is driving innovative technology entrepreneurs to create new markets in impoverished areas where opportunity did not previously exist. Clayton Christensen, and his coauthors Karen Dillon and Efosa Ojomo, lay this out in their book "The Prosperity Paradox" and highlight the role of innovators in developing prosperity in emerging economies. The best of altruistic intentions — and billions of dollars in aid — haven't lifted many countries out of poverty. Instead, Christensen advocates market-creating innovation as the key. One such innovative entrepreneur is Wendy Gonzalez, CEO of Sama, who leads a company founded on this powerful idea. In this episode, originally recorded during the October 2021 VMworld event, Wendy shares how Sama, an AI training data company, has helped over 56,000 people lift themselves out of poverty while creating tremendous value for their clients. In this conversation, she explains how great talent is everywhere, how diversity creates a greater product, and what a difference it would make if every company had a strong social mission. Wendy Gonzalez on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/wendy-gonzalez-a319788/Nicola Acutt on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/nicolaacutt/CIO Exchange on Twitter: https://twitter.com/vmwcioexchangeYadin Porter de León on Twitter: https://twitter.com/porterdeleon  [Subscribe to the Podcast] On Apple Podcast: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/cio-exchange-podcast/id1498290907 For more podcasts, video and in-depth research go to https://www.vmware.com/cio

In this podcast we talk about how not all innovations are created equal.  We explain the three kinds of innovation: Market-creating innovation, sustaining innovation, and efficiency innovation and the role that each of them play.  Different kinds of innovation create different opportunities with different outcomes for the entrepreneur or business owner.     In this episode, you'll learn:  How a “Market-Creating Innovation” creates new markets that serve people with new or more accessible products How a “Sustaining Innovation” make performance improvements to existing products or services How an “Efficiency Innovation” help a company do more with less   More information  The Prosperity Paradox by Clayton Christensen Visit our website to learn more about this podcast Riadi.me/138 Thanks for Tuning In!  Thanks so much for being with us this week. Have some feedback you'd like to share? Please leave a note in the comments section below!    If you enjoyed this episode, please share it with your friends. Don't forget to subscribe to the show on iTunes to get automatic episode updates for the Riadi Club Podcast!

نتحدث في هذا البودكاست عن كيف لا تتساوى الابتكارات. نشرح ثلاثة أنواع مختلفة من الابتكار: ابتكار خلق السوق ، والابتكار المستدام، وابتكار الفعالية والدور الذي يلعبه كل منهم. تخلق الأنواع المختلفة من الابتكار فرصًا مختلفة ذات نتائج مختلفة لرائد الأعمال أو صاحب العمل :في هذه الحلقة سوف تتعلم كيف يخلق "ابتكار خلق السوق" أسواقًا جديدة تخدم الأشخاص بمنتجات جديدة أو يسهل الوصول إليها كيف يُدخل "الابتكار المستدام" تحسينات على أداء المنتجات أو الخدمات الحالية كيف يساعد "ابتكار الفعالية" الشركة على تحقيق المزيد بموارد أقل   معلومات أكثر The Prosperity Paradox by Clayton Christensen  قم بزيارة موقعنا على الإنترنت لمعرفة المزيد عن هذا البودكاستwww.Riadi.me/137 !شكرا لاستماعك شكرا جزيلا لوجودك معنا هذا الأسبوع. هل لديك بعض الملاحظات التي تود مشاركتها؟ يرجى ترك ملاحظة في قسم التعليقات أدناه .إذا استمتعت بهذه الحلقة ، يرجى مشاركتها مع أصدقائك للحصول على تحديثات للحلقات من  iTunes لا تنسى الاشتراك في العرض "The Riadi Club Podcast!" 

Would you rather be wealthy or prosperous?  Do you think they're the same?  We often get distracted by the “appearance” of external wealth.  In this podcast we focus on how the ability to create and add value helps us be prosperous.  We focus on the importance of skills and the ability to create wealth through prosperity.        In this episode, you'll learn:  The difference between wealth and prosperity Why having or building a skillset creates value and helps you build prosperity That business owners have skills that let them be prosperous and build wealth In this episode, we'll ask you:  Would you rather inherit a million dollars or have the skills to create a million dollars every few years? Would you choose your skills over your money?   More information  The Prosperity Paradox by Clayton Christensen The Innovator's Dilemma by Clayton Christensen Visit our website to learn more about this podcast Riadi.me/136 Thanks for Tuning In!  Thanks so much for being with us this week. Have some feedback you'd like to share? Please leave a note in the comments section below!    If you enjoyed this episode, please share it with your friends. Don't forget to subscribe to the show on iTunes to get automatic episode updates for the Riadi Club Podcast!

هل تفضل أن تكون ثريًا أم مزدهرًا؟ هل تعتقد أنهما متماثلان؟ غالبًا ما يصرف انتباهنا "مظهر" الثروة الخارجية. في هذا البودكاست ، نركز على كيف تساعدنا القدرة على إنشاء وإضافة قيمة على تحقيق الازدهار. نحن نركز على أهمية المهارات والقدرة على تكوين الثروة من خلال الازدهار    :في هذه الحلقة سوف تتعلم الفرق بين الثروة والازدهار لماذا امتلاك أو بناء مجموعة مهارات يخلق قيمة ويساعدك على بناء الرخاء أصحاب الأعمال لديهم المهارات التي تجعلهم يزدهرون ويبنون الثروة :في هذه الحلقة، سنطلب منك هل تفضل أن ترث مليون دولار أم أن تمتلك المهارات اللازمة لتكوين مليون دولار كل بضع سنوات؟ هل تختار مهاراتك على أموالك؟ معلومات أكثر The Prosperity Paradox by Clayton Christensen The Innovator's Dilemma by Clayton Christensen قم بزيارة موقعنا على الإنترنت لمعرفة المزيد عن هذا البودكاستwww.Riadi.me/135 !شكرا لاستماعك شكرا جزيلا لوجودك معنا هذا الأسبوع. هل لديك بعض الملاحظات التي تود مشاركتها؟ يرجى ترك ملاحظة في قسم التعليقات أدناه .إذا استمتعت بهذه الحلقة ، يرجى مشاركتها مع أصدقائك للحصول على تحديثات للحلقات من  iTunes لا تنسى الاشتراك في العرض "The Riadi Club Podcast!" 

Salah satu pertanyaan yang sering muncul adalah bagaimana mengembangkan sesuatu (melakukan inovasi) jika sumber daya tidak tersedia. Saya pun tadinya berpikiran demikian karena merasa sebagai pemain kecil. Ternyata perusahaan besarpun punya masalah yang sama; tidak memiliki resources. Lantas bagaimana? Ya, saya sih jreng saja. Do it, kalau kata Nike. Langsung saya kerjakan tanpa paham teorinya. Ternyata ada teori yang mendukung. Ini saya temukan ketika membaca buku "the Prosperity Paradox", bahwa ... "Innovation Preceeds Resources" Ternyata memang inovasi tidak boleh menunggu tersedianya sumber daya. Justru dia menjadi bagian dari yang akhirnya menyediakan sumber daya. (Buku ini harus saya bahas setelah saya selesai membacanya).

What turns a developing country into a prosperous one? For years, Efosa Ojomo has been trying to answer this question. And what he has found – through starting his own nonprofit in Nigeria, doing research at Harvard Business School and writing a book called The Prosperity Paradox with Clay Christensen – reverses many of our existing ideas around aid. In this talk, Efosa lays out a new approach to fighting poverty that identifies innovation as the key driver of prosperity. But how does one build an innovative business in a developing market? In environments that can be as unfamiliar and unpredictable as they are full of opportunity? Stick around after the talk, where Modupe and Efosa discuss the unique mindset that this type of business requires.

He discovered the prosperity paradox ... and its solution. Efosa Ojomo is a Nigerian author, former TED speaker, and researcher. He empowers entrepreneurs across the world to transform their communities through innovation. Ojomo discusses market creation and identifying opportunities for growth with host Charles Mizrahi. Topics Discussed: An Introduction to Efosa Ojomo (00:00:00) From Nigeria to America (00:06:22) American Prosperity (00:07:22) Market-Creating Innovations (00:16:37) Creative Destruction (00:23:50) Silicon Valley 3.0 (00:32:40) Changing the System (00:39:32) The Prosperity Paradox (00:46:02) Innovation Bootcamp (00:49:23) Guest Bio: Efosa Ojomo immigrated from Nigeria to the U.S. in search of a good education and the American dream. After attending Harvard Business School, he worked alongside legendary professor Clay Christensen and Karen Dillon to coauthor The Prosperity Paradox: How Innovation Can Lift Nations Out of Poverty. This book gives insights into building sustainable economies and is a call to action for anyone looking to create lasting change. Since then, he has given several presentations on prosperity and entrepreneurship — such as his https://www.ted.com/talks/efosa_ojomo_reducing_corruption_takes_a_specific_kind_of_investment (TED) talk. He’s also partnered with The Legatum Center for Development and Entrepreneurship at MIT to build a market-creating innovation bootcamp for emerging entrepreneurs. Resources Mentioned: ·       https://www.amazon.com/Prosperity-Paradox-Innovation-Nations-Poverty/dp/0062851829 (The Prosperity Paradox: How Innovation Can Lift Nations Out of Poverty) Don't Forget To...  https://the-charles-mizrahi-show.captivate.fm/listen (Subscribe to my podcast! ) Download this episode to save for later  Liked this episode? Leave a kind review!     Subscribe to Charles' Alpha Investor newsletter today: https://pro.banyanhill.com/m/1729783 

The Prosperity ParadoxSince the mid-1960s, Asia has achieved remarkable economic growth and has seen hundreds of millions of people rise out of poverty. However the fact is, Asia is still some way away from completely eradicating poverty. At the end of 2020, there were still over 500 million people affected by poverty in Asia.Poverty is typically looked at as a lack of resources. So it makes sense that to solve the poverty problem we push resources that a country lacks. For example, if a country lacks sufficient health care, clinics are pushed. If education is the missing resource then schools are pushed. But history suggests that this way of doing things, while well-intentioned, has simply not been successful.But if the problem of poverty can't simply be solved by an injection of passion and resources, then what to do instead?To answer these questions and more, I speak to Efosa Ejoma, Global Prosperity Lead of the Christensen Institute, for his insights.

Day 7 of my 30 day Challenge Written by Clayton Christensen, Efosa Ojomo and Karen Dillon Prosperity Paradox will be an interesting book for those keen on understanding the connection on business and society. The book puts forth the argument that Market Creating Innovations help nations lift their society from Poverty. Do Email Me any Comments/Suggestions: penpositive@gmail.com Join the Community: https://www.penpositive.com Subscribe to the YouTube Channels Penpositive: https://www.youtube.com/penpositive Personal: https://www.youtube.com/vinodnarayan Poetry & Blog: https://vinodnarayan.com/ Connect on Instagram @penpositive or on Clubhouse @vinodnarayan --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/penpositive/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/penpositive/support

Ben & Jay have an inspiring conversation with Javier Lozano, Founder and CEO of Clínicas del Azúcar, a growing chain of "one-stop shops" for diabetes care in Mexico.  Armed with a willingness to explore, a passion for helping people in need (including his mother) and the theories of Dr. Clayton Christensen, Javier has created a truly disruptive innovation focused on the consumer's Jobs To Be Done and the concept of non-consumption.  His work is literally saving lives.  Readers of Clay's 2018 book, The Prosperity Paradox, co-authored with Karen Dillon and Efosa Ojomo, will remember Javier's story, which was featured as a live case study in market-creating innovation.  For more on market-creating innovation, see the Global Prosperity content published by The Christensen Institute, authored by Efosa Ojomo and Lincoln Wilcox.Also, The International Finance Corporation, an affiliate of The World Bank, authored an excellent case study of Clínicas del Azúcar.   Download and read here.All Things Twitter:A Sherpa's Guide to InnovationBen TingeyJay GerhartSupport the show (https://healthpodcastnetwork.com/)

Prosperity and sustainable, inclusive growth are the ultimate goals for developing economies. However, despite the global community spending billions each year on economic development programmes, poverty and a lack of opportunity within these countries persists. But what if there is a way in which we can support these economies to evolve from poverty to prosperity in less than two decades? Innovation expert Efosa Ojomo believes focused and impact driven market innovations could do just that. Join us for this conversation with Efosa, co-author of The Prosperity Paradox and Senior Fellow at the Christensen Institute on Disruptive Innovation. Efosa is joined on the panel by Nikunj Jinsi, a hugely experienced venture capital investor in developing countries.  The discussion is chaired by CDC's General Counsel and Head of External Relations, Colin Buckley. 

I had a conversation with Efosa Ojomo of the Clay Christensen Institute. He is the co-author of the book The Prosperity Paradox - along with Karen Dillon and the late Harvard management guru Clayton Christensen. The central argument of the book is that economic development happens when businesses innovate by creating a previously non-existent market. The book has been largely shunned by development scholars and this is where I started my conversation with Efosa. I also go through some other criticisms of the book, and Efosa had interesting answers. The book relies on case studies and might be considered not empirically rigorous by development scholars. Regardless of critics, the argument is powerful and hard to ignore. I read it as changing the overall incentives of all stakeholders in the process of economic development - when bureaucrats, the private sector can all benefit from making the pie bigger, things can move very quickly.TranscriptTL: Hi, and this is Ideas Untrapped. My guest today is Efosa Ojomo. Efosa is a senior research fellow at the Clay Christensen Institute. He has written a book called The Prosperity Paradox. It's a bestseller, and personally, one of the most refreshing books that I have read on the subject in the last couple of years. You're welcome, Efosa.EO: Thank you very much, Tobi. It's a pleasure to be here with you. I can't wait to dive in. Thank you.TL: Okay, so I'll start with the book and the central thesis, which I know as also appeared in your other publications, be it essays and articles. You talked about market-creating innovations as the key to prosperity, to getting the process of development started, to fighting poverty. What is your convincing evidence, so to speak, for this particular paradigm you're advocating? And why is the "Development Establishment", you know, aid agencies and scholars working in that area, why are they missing that point of view?EO: Wow, so that is a great question to start. Unfortunately, it's not a question I can answer with one answer, so let me unpack the question. Because you asked what's the evidence for market-creating innovation? Why do development practitioners approach development and antipoverty programs a certain way? And why haven't they bought into this idea - the notion of market-creating innovation? So let me start with diagnosing the problem. When you want to address any issue you have to make sure you spend a lot of time diagnosing it. Let's go back to the aid industry and when it really began.1949, Harry Truman gave a speech where he actually, unintentionally, I believe, catalyzed the beginning of the modern-day development industry. And in his speech (it was his inaugural address, you know, president of the US at the time), he defined the problem of development as rich versus poor. Developed versus undeveloped. First world versus third world. He didn't use all that language, but that's essentially how he defined it. As, you know, we are developed and we have all these resources, these poor countries are not developed, they don't have these resources, let us transfer resources to them and help them develop.That is the main way the development industry works today. It's this idea that you are not developed, we are developed, we're going to transfer resources to you. So that's number one, right, [on] why the industry operates the way it does. Number two is that the development industry is an industry that attracts certain types of people. And so if you look at big players in the development industry, what you're going to see are people who have gone to school to get typically a PhD or Masters degree in the area of development. And so they study development as a whole as an entire entity and the research they do is often very focused on how one element impact entity.So you might write a PhD thesis on how education of girls in this part of Ghana impacts their ability to go to school. Now, that's an interesting paper and you may find out, oh, if we educate girls, more of them will have fewer kids and they'll get advanced degrees, but that will not lead to the development of Ghana as a country. It answers, oftentimes, what I think is an inconsequential question. And so the development industry has a lot of players trying to do good work, unfortunately, they're answering the wrong or I would say inconsequential questions.The third thing I would say with regard to development and why it's practice the way it is [is], in a weird way, we know what the answer is. The answer to development looks like, right, in our minds, whether it's right or wrong, it looks like America. It looks like Japan. It looks like France and England. In other words, you go to these countries that are wealthy, and generally speaking, things work. The roads are good, the electricity does not go out, the law enforcement, for the most part, works. And so you say, "you know what? The problem in our countries that are not yet developed is all these things don't work. So let us make them work." Let us fix the roads. Let us fix the laws. Let us fix the schools.What these three things I just discussed are missing is the fundamental mechanism that helps these things work. Right, the fundamental mechanism that actually provides the resources or creates the value that really enables these things to work. And that fundamental mechanism is market-creating innovations. Which is connected to the initial question you asked: "what's the evidence that this actually worked?" Again, to answer that, we have to go back in time. We have to say, "if we have this hypothesis that market-creating innovations work, how can we show that? We had to go back to a time when these wealthy countries, the United States, countries in Europe, Japan and so on were not wealthy. We had to go back to when they had demographics that are similar to many poor countries today. And we said, what happened? Did these countries simply build the great infrastructure all of a sudden? The government, were they never corrupt and they just woke up one day and began to institute good laws and practices? Or was it a more dynamic nonlinear process of entrepreneurs across the country creating new markets, employing people, generating tax revenues, enabling the government to overtime improve its institutions? What we found was the latter. It was a more dynamic and nonlinear process.And so that kind of finding is really hard to document at scale and what I mean is, you know, when you pass a law, it's in the record books, we know exactly when this law was passed and so we can look at society before the law and we can look at how society evolves after the law. The problem with innovation is it's really hard to say, okay, this is the date - on November 5th, 2006, this is the date this innovation came and created all this impact. It's a process. And so instead of looking at oh, these were the laws that were passed, this is how society evolved, that's how the institution changed the society. What's more important to do is say "what led to the passage of those laws? Who fought for the passage of those laws? Where did they get the resources to fight for the passage of those laws? Where did the government get the resources to enforce the laws?"And so these questions are a lot more difficult to answer, but when you begin to unpack them, it's hard to divorce development from innovation and more specifically market-creating innovation. My hope is that development practitioners begin to ask the tougher questions and begin to engage in what a wise man, once called "intellectual honesty." And really assess - are our programs working? Are they working the way we want them to work? We've been doing development like this for over the past 20 years, over the past 30 years. How has that resulted in prosperity? COVID-19 has come around and all of a sudden development is pushed back 25 years. Uh, was it really pushed back 25 years or were we celebrating a false sense of progress? Because development is not pushed back 25 years in Japan, it's not pushed back 25 years in France, I can tell you that. And so we have to get to the point where we are asking the difficult questions on how to truly do sustainable development.TL: I want to go to your latest article in Project Syndicate where you challenged African entrepreneurs and business people to rethink the way they do business, and invests more in market-creating innovations. My question is why are they not thinking about this already, what are the barriers if the returns are there given some of the examples and evidence you've cited?EO: Well, first of all, market-creating innovations are innovations that transform complicated and expensive products into products that are simple and affordable. Now, these innovations make these products more accessible to many, many more people in society. And so an example would be the proliferation of mobile phones all across Africa, for instance. Or a company in Ghana called mPharma that is making medication drugs more affordable, more accessible to people. Micro Insurer is another example, making insurance more affordable to people who historically would not be able to afford existing insurance products. So examples abound. Now the question you ask about why if these things are so interesting and exciting, why are they not being pursued?A couple of reasons, the first is there is a sense that innovation is something that happens after a society develops and becomes prosperous [because] it's only people with, you know, disposable income, with extra income that can actually afford many products on the market. So that belief is widespread. And unfortunately, it's really hard to go against a belief. One of the things we're trying to do is say no, no, no, innovation is not something that happens after a society develops, innovation is the process by which society develops. So that's one. The second thing is this concept of non-consumption.Now, non-consumption is a phenomenon that happens in every society, but it's more prevalent in emerging economies or poorer countries. It describes how many people in the society would benefit from gaining access to a product or service, but because of the cost of the product, because of the skill necessary to use the product or the time needed to actually purchase and consume the product, or the simple fact that the product is just not available, many people cannot access these products. It doesn't mean they wouldn't benefit, but there are obstacles or barriers.Now, the non-consumption economy as we like to call it contains all these individuals. The problem is when you do market research on opportunities, a lot of times the insights we get from our market research point to what we call the consumption economy. It points to people who already consuming. And so when you look at the market research for televisions in Nigeria or refrigerators in Ghana, what you are measuring is not all the people who would benefit if they had access to these products or services. What the market research data is measuring is all the people who can afford the services. And so? You say oh, refrigerators in Nigeria, only 2 million people have them, as an example - I actually don't know the number off the top of my head. Only 2 million people, that's a very small market. That doesn't warrant our investment especially when you compare it to a hundred million in the US, there's no market in Nigeria.What market research does not take into account is what about nonconsumption? What about all the people who would benefit from gaining access to these refrigerators? [But] because we don't measure and value nonconsumption, it's hard to even see it as an opportunity. And the last reason I would give, you know, I'd be remiss if I didn't say [is] it's really difficult to go after nonconsumption. It's difficult for the first two reasons I described and it's difficult because you are literally creating a market that does not exist.And so in the research that we've done on just studying market-creating innovators, whether the ones in the US, in Europe, in Africa, in Asia it doesn't matter. Before these innovators create the market, there is widespread disbelief, especially from those who are experts these economies. They tell them there's no way that this market exists. These people are too poor. They're not educated enough, they can't afford these products. And so, to go against the grain when there's no market, the people are poor, the environment is difficult to work in, those are obstacles that are really difficult for entrepreneurs and investors. And so part of our work, what we're trying to do is, say, look, many of these demographics we see, many of these characteristics of these economies are very normal. They're not easy, they're simply incredibly normal. You're not doing what has not been done before. And if we can normalize these difficulties and say if you take a more predictable approach to innovation and investment, we can't guarantee success but we can help mitigate failure. We think you can actually do better in these emerging economies.TL: Do you think that there are conflicts of interest in most of the boardrooms of African businesses? I mean, in that piece you challenged Milton Friedman's opinion of the responsibility of a business in society, which he says is solely to the shareholders or the stakeholders. So, do you think that there's a conflict of interest in most boardrooms, where some of the things that entrepreneurs and some business leaders are interested in, in this case, market-creating innovations, are not things that investors really think can give them returns on their capital?EO: Yeah, so I think there's a lot to unpack in that...because of the abundance of data all over the place, unfortunately, we now live in a world of short-termism. There's more short-term thinking going around. What do I mean? Well, you know, if I'm watching the news and I hear about this company, this investor that made a lot of money on some investments, was able to cash out in a few years, that affects the way I think, it affects the way I measure my own performance. And so this abundance of data has created short-term thinking.In addition, what you also have is a lot of the literature on finance, what constitutes a good investment comes from countries that are already prosperous. They come from countries where I would say they are no longer, generally speaking, in the market creation phase. And so they are more in the efficiency phase. So they have roads, they have institutions, they have organization building companies and the question is often, oh, how do we make this more efficient? How do we make better products? When you use those same metrics to analyze projects and organisations in Africa or other emerging regions, you have a mismatch because the continent is still in a market-creating phase. And so to use private equity metrics that I would use in New York to measure projects in Lagos or Abuja or Accra or Nairobi makes absolutely no sense. Literally no sense. It's akin to using the same metrics to analyze the development of a 3-year-old and a 30-year-old. It makes no sense. And so instead of a conflict of interest, I think I would say it's a mismatch of metrics.If, as the CEO of an African company or the board chair of an African company, I had the goal to grow my market size and capture 60 percent of the customers in Africa. Say, I make baby food or something 'cause you know Africa is a growing continent. Well, I'm not going to measure my performance the same way Gerber babies measures its performance in other countries. I'm going to say look, what did baby food companies go through when the US was a poor country? What did they invest in? How long did it take? How did they manage the relationship with government? How did they manage relationship with the community stakeholders? How did they develop their staff? And I'm going to use those metrics. 'Cause if I use the metrics that these companies today are using, I cannot develop. It's not like it'll take time. No no no, like, we will never develop.Now, you know, there will be some wins here and there, there will be some lucky breaks here and there and that's what we see from time to time. But to truly develop in the circumstance we find ourselves, we need to step away from using metrics that are propagated all over the place and develop a core set of metrics that are contextualized to our own circumstance.TL: Do you think that this framework that you describe - [that is] businesses really innovating their business models to target nonconsumption and grow the pie, so to speak. Do you think it's the absolute fundamental thing that has to happen, 'cause the way I read your book and some of your works is like a chicken and egg problem, right? Like, what has to happen first, you know? Some in the development literature would say that you need institutions, you need good institutions first before you can do some of these things that you say. What is your response to that?EO: I mean, I empathize with those who say we need good institutions, but that is not really a value-add statement. The reason I say that is, okay, we need good institutions, what do we do next? We look at the Nigerian government, at least the federal government...in addition to the lack of managerial and technical capabilities, the government has roughly $200 or so to spend per year per Nigerian. Of that, maybe fifty to $75 goes out the door to service its debt. So roughly $125 to a $150. In addition, when you look at where it's starting, I mean, nobody would look at Nigeria and say we practice good governance, so it's starting from the back of the pack, and so it needs even more resources to get to good governance. When you compare where Nigeria is and what it has, the resources to, again, you know, whether it's Norway, Denmark, America. Norway spends twenty to $30,000 per person per year. And so the idea that, oh, Nigeria needs good institutions, that's like saying a homeless person needs more money. If they had more money, they wouldn't be homeless. That's not a value-add statement.The question is, how do we get to good institutions? How did the US get to good institutions when it was poor? And so if somebody comes up and says - you know what Efosa, Nigeria spends $150 per year per person, here's how they can actually get good institutions and it's a realistic model. Then we can start the conversation. But when, you know, these experts throw out blanket statements oh, we need good institutions... I'm like, okay, what am I gonna do with that? What is the police officer who is demanding brides, making $50 a month going to do with you need to have better institutions? What is that politician who has made a bunch of deals before he or she becomes a senator or a governor and they get into office and they have to square all those they made deals with? They have to figure out how to amass as much wealth as they can because there are little to no economic opportunities in the country, what are they going to do with the "you need good institutions?" There are no incentives. Right? To live out that statement. So we do need to move a lot further from the "we need good institutions" argument because it has not done anybody any good.You know, there's a paper we referenced in the book - how not to fix problems that matter? And ultimately what happens is a majority of institutional reform programs funded by big development players do not work. You know, you come to my country, you tell me, oh, I should behave this way, I should do this, I should make sure this is easier for people and many of the public sector participants on the ground just listen, they take the development dollars, they reformed the institutions in a way that makes the donors happy and they keep doing what they're doing. Because it doesn't cut deep. It doesn't fundamentally change how people think about society. The incentive systems, they don't change. So, do we need good institutions? Absolutely. How do we get there? That's a tougher question.TL: Staying with that thought. Now, isn't there a case for, well, maybe it depends on what we mean when we talk about institutions right? And I know that scholars and even people who work in development are guilty of trying to imagine already formed institutions in developed nations and trying to graft a lot of their features in countries that do not have them. But for businesses to take risks, you know, don't you think that institutions like basic property rights protection, contract enforcement and things that create the environment for you to be able to take risk, however minimally, don't you think those should come before market-creating innovations or targeting non-consumption in the way you describe it?EO: It's a good one. I think the better question to ask has to be more specific. Now, I'm not saying investors should just go and put their money in any country. And there no, at least, limited guarantees, that's not what I mean. I mean, after all, businesses are operating in Nigeria as we speak. I mean you are speaking to me through an Internet service connection. So the idea that somehow institutions don't work and we need better institutions, I mean, it's not too mature. We have to mature that idea. So we have to be specific. We have to say, if you are going to invest in this space, in this country, in this region, you have to ensure the specific fundamental requirements that as best as you can, no investment is ever secure or ever guaranteed... But you have to ensure there are fundamental, sort of legitimate, base-level institutions exist.And I think if we went in with those sorts of questions, not ways Nigeria on the ease of doing business index, how is Nigeria's corruption perception ranking? That's too broad, generic, and that's not helpful to anybody. If the folks who are providing us with this Internet connection went into Nigeria with that thinking they would not have gone in. And so, somehow, that question forces an answer that is not helpful. The question has to be, look, I'm a transportation investor, I wanna go and make transportation more affordable for people in Malawi. Alright, let me look at who the transportation players are. Let me understand that sector. Let me understand who the government players are. Let me understand what the regulations are, how have they changed it over the last five years. How might they change it over the next year?You have to do your homework. And, no offence, many investors are not willing to do the homework. And so of course, you're gonna not find Nigeria attractive when you go in with the oh, don't we need the baseline this and that? No, no, no, no, that's a lazy way to think about investing and more specifically, development. We go in more targeted. And if we do that, again, no guarantees we will be successful but that's a much better problem-solving exercise than oh, yeah, let Nigeria move up some rankings. Let's improve. What does a good institution look like? I mean, like you know, in the broad sense, what does that really even look like?I mean, I think I would be more targeted than looking at Nigeria or, really, any country from a high level, like, how are the institutions? Don't we need this base level?TL: That's a good point, but here is another way to look at this from my perspective. Some of the examples you cite like Mo Ibrahim, Celtel; Tolaram in Nigeria, don't you think that there's a bit of a survivorship bias in some of those examples? Like, for example, if we look at the case of Tolaram, yes, it has done really well. Well, "well" is relative here, so, but it has survived.EO: It has.TL: Yes, and it's become a household name and it may well be a replicable model for investing and doing business in this environment. But you can also argue that over those decades, a lot of businesses have also tried and failed.EO: Yes.TL: And aren't you picking winners? And in that sense, not really robust with your sample set in that sense. Because a lot of entrepreneurs who are trying to do things differently would tell you how hard it is. Some of them are losing money, some of them are losing their skin, some are highly demotivated and these are people that really, really want to do bold and innovative things. But the general, again, institutional environment, and in this case, specific policies that worked against them are serious barriers. So aren't you effectively simply picking winners and just ignoring the other side?EO: It's a good question. I think I would answer, yes, if there was something anomalous about Tolaram in the context it finds itself. And so if I did not see similarities between Tolaram and Isaac Singer, who we wrote about, or Henry Ford who we wrote about, if I did not see similarities in how they had to engage with government, how they had to raise capital, how they had to almost lose their skin (in your language), then I would say, oh, yeah, we're just picking winners. But there's nothing anomalous about what they've done. In fact, I expect winners to look like Tolaram, Mo Ibrahim and several other companies that we talk about.If they don't look like them, then the chances that they will win, at least market-creating, are very very slim. The other way I would respond to that is, I have never once and I will never say this is the easy path. This is incredibly difficult. It's so difficult that I am convinced this is the critical missing piece. It's paradoxical, but that is why we are not developing. Because there is this incredibly difficult thing we have to do, but we believe the only way we can do it is if the environment allows us do it and so we have to fix the environment. Now we believe that so strongly that we are willing to invest billions of dollars to try and fix the environment, with no connection to this mechanism that's gonna make the environment thrive. That's how strongly we believe in educating the public, in institutional reform, in fixing infrastructure whether or not it makes sense.We're trying to do all that and we're paying little attention to empowering entrepreneurs. And so if I, for instance, were Mo Ibrahim, after I sell my Celtel and I become a billionaire, I would say okay, what's the next industry I want to democratize? And I go, and I do the hard work of building that I will not do governance. Nobody is winning the prizes. It's incredibly difficult to do any meaningful reform because the equation, we have the backwards. Development is difficult. There are no easy answers here. What we have to do is ask, what gives us the best chance? Does wishful thinking in light of poorly paid civil servants who have little to no incentive to improve the system give us the best shot at success? Or does figuring out a way to empower and create new markets where some of the revenues from those markets can be pumped into the institution and overtime maybe it gets better. Does that give us a better shot? I think I'm gonna put myself in that camp.The last thing I would say on this is, there's a professor out of [the] University of Michigan. Yuen Yuen Ang who just published a book called China's Gilded Age - The paradox of economic boom and vast corruption.TL: I know her.EO: Yes, and so she talks a little bit more about the public sector side of things. I mean, no two countries are alike or identical, but she does a really good job of explaining how even in light of China's vast corruption, there was an economic development push that prioritized investors, markets and as a result, China, for all its problems, has been able to lift a billion people out of poverty, grow 10 percent over the last four decades, and improve. So, there no easy answers here, it's just we have to pick the camp we think makes the most sense, and I don't think the camp where a monopoly entity with little to no incentive to change, trying to incentivize them to change by giving them more resources and empowering them when the incentive system in society hasn't changed, like, somehow, that makes no sense to me.TL: I like the Ang Yuen Yuen example. It's a great example and I've read both her books, I think what she's doing is fantastic. So here is my question on that. You gave the example of Mo Ibrahim. Now, don't you think that people like Mo Ibrahim - and of course this is not really about him - or people like him who focus on the issue of governance... now we may critique or find some fault in how we've been going about this. But don't you think they focus on the issue of governance because it is through governance, again, I reiterate, that you can get a hundred Mo Ibrahims?Because, Tolaram may have adapted well, it may have really found a way to survive through thick and thin in Nigeria, however difficult others may say it is, by doing its homework and making targeted informed investments like you said. But, in the end, Tolaram doing well may not necessarily raise the GDP per capita of Nigeria.EO: Yeah.TL: Which in terms of poverty and prosperity that is what really matters at the end of the day, income for people. So don't think governance may not be the only way, but it's an easier, faster way for the kind of entrepreneurship that you are advocating to scale, really, really fast, you know. I mean, in America, yeah, Ford had an innovative business model that changed its generation and maybe the way business was done in America after. But also, there was an environment that did not entrench Ford, but that allowed others, Dodge, GM and most of these other companies to emerge and improve on those things and create tons of jobs.So don't you think that governance is vital in a way that it allows businesses that really want to innovate to scale their business model really fast and for other businesses to look at their success and be encouraged to enter that space and do even better things?EO: Absolutely governance is important. We say it in the book. Entrepreneurs ignite the fire, the government fans the flame. You can not have a developed prosperous society without ultimately getting governance involved, it's a matter of sequencing and incentives. Now, I would agree governance is important insofar as we're talking about the same thing. Again, I don't want us to limit our conversation to oh, good institutions are important, you know, that's a non-value-add statement. Governance is important if what we mean by that is working with economic development stakeholders to make sure the incentive systems in society benefit those who work in government. I, right now, can give you not one reason why a poorly paid civil servant who exists in a system that is steeped in corruption to go to work every day, do a great job, do as much as he or she can for the society that already thinks he or she is stealing money, not have enough money for rent, for health care needs, education need and go home because Mo Ibrahim Index says you need to have good institutions. No, No, No. That makes, again, no sense. I would not do that. You would not do that, I don't think.Now if what we mean by governance is vital is, look, let us sit down here and let's do it the way the Chinese did. Let us align your incentives with how much investment dollars are coming into your state. Let us make sure that, you know, yeah, you get paid $100 a month, but if you are able to attract this much investment, if you are able to make sure these entrepreneurs thrive, then you get a 50 percent bonus. You get a 100 percent bonus. You develop the incentives to help the government do the job that we're asking them to do. Because it is a thankless job. It is a terrible job. It is a job where everybody thinks you're stealing money, whether or not you are. And we know this. So the idea that we should just keep measuring, saying, "what's wrong with these guys? Why we need to fix it" without sitting down and saying, how can we realistically fix this so we limit the incentive for government officials to steal? We're going to be spinning our wheels for years to come, right? That is what I think we can do from a governance standpoint. Align incentives, make sure, me as a public servant, I benefit if my society benefits.If my society benefits, and I don't benefit, well, forget about it. It's not going to happen.TL: I agree with you, we need to move away from some of these useless indices, to be honest. So do you think that changing incentives the way you analyzed, do you think that there are some, I don't want to say natural disadvantages or barriers that are specific to certain societies. For example Nigeria, there is oil and the so-called resource curse.EO: Yeah.TL: How do you think that can work with incentive problem? You know, because you have bureaucrats and public servants who have no incentive in the success of the private sector. They can simply sell oil licenses and drilling rights and keep collecting taxes from that same sector and borrow to plug the other fiscal holes and live like that for decades.EO: Yeah. So, that's a tough question, right? And, again, I want to be as practical ask as possible. If you had a trust fund baby, you had a really wealthy person who didn't manage their money well, allowed their kids to do whatever they wanted, the question you're asking is, how can we incentivize this trust fund baby to actually care about self-improvement and development? I mean, that's difficult, right? What I would do is try and find the officials who will be open to a different way of creating value and wealth. I can guarantee you not all 36 governors in Nigeria are extremely corrupt, or at least corrupt at the same level. Not all of them will be uninterested or disinterested in an idea to create a new industry in their region.TL: Certainly not.EO: So it's not to say this is an easy road or, you know, you're just going to find people willy nilly. But you go to the first governor... I'm simplifying because we're on the podcast, right? I know people in government right now, and I can give names of people I trust. People who are trying their best to do well by the community. So the idea that oh, everybody 'cause I think that is what we imply when we say the government has access to oil and you're right, they do. But there are still going to be people in government who we take interesting ideas to and in communicating those ideas, we help them see if this works out, you would have generated this much income for this state. You would have created this much value if you allow this to work out. These many constituents would get jobs. You can talk about this in your next campaign.Now, if you take that message to every governor in Nigeria, maybe they will all say get out of here, I am not buying it. If that happens, then go to Ghana. Go to Cameroon. Go to Rwanda. Go somewhere until you find a country where it will work. Again, I'm not advocating this because I think it's easy. In fact, I'm advocating it precisely because I think it's difficult. But, unfortunately, I do not see another way we can develop. I just do not. And once I do, I will start promoting that because before we started the podcast, you and I discussed the idea of intellectual honesty and I suppose I just do not see how we get out of the rut we're in if we don't start to think differently.TL: One final area I'll like us to explore is culture. I mean, one of the books you cited in the book, which I like very much, is Deirdre McCloskey's Bourgeois Dignity, and she talked about how the social embrace, so to speak, of the culture of Commerce, sort of laid the groundwork for some of the things that happened in the West, you know?EO: Yeah.TL: So what role do you see for culture here? I mean, it's easy to talk about hard metrics and talk about governance and you know, but we know that culture is the software of society. So what role do you see for culture in this?EO: You are absolutely right, culture is key. Culture is the software. But culture runs on hardware. And culture is connected to hard metrics. And so if I use your analogy of software and hardware, there is no software I know that runs on software like every piece of software runs on hardware and depending on the makeup of the hardware, if you have a really fast processor hardware, then your software will run faster if it has the capabilities to. And so culture might seem like software that's malleable, and it is valuable, but it is not malleable without hard metrics.What do I mean? Well, let's think about why we may not value commerce as much as we should or why we value corruption as much as we do. Well, look at the hard metrics. If you're fortunate to get into a position of power in many of our countries, there are hard metrics in your life that increase - your access to the elites in society, certainly your bank account, your homes, your car, your children access to better education. Those are hard metrics. So the idea that somehow our culture values that practice makes complete sense. The idea that we value entrepreneurship and innovation in the US is connected to hard metrics as well, right? Look at the richest people here. It's all these innovators.So for me, the two are sort of one and the same. What we know is that you can't change the software if it has no bearing on the hardware, if you don't change the hardware. In other words, if we don't figure out how to increase or improve those hard metrics, it's gonna be very difficult for us to change the software, sustainably. We might for a little while, right, we might for a political term or two. But what we're talking about here is long term development, decades-long. And if we don't figure out how to help people in society make progress in a way that they lead better lives, their kids lead better lives, they have access to better healthcare and so on... Unfortunately, the software is not going to change, the culture is not gonna change. And so I do think we can connect the two better.TL: One final questions before I let you go, which is also a tradition on the podcast is, what is the one big idea right now that... it may be something you're working on or something you'll like to see. So what's that one big idea that you're thinking about right now that you will like to see spread and see the world adopt and see people believe more?EO: Yeah, so I think for me, in the context of my work, it is this - innovation and entrepreneurship are not things that happen after a society fixes itself. They are actually the process by which society fixes itself. If more people can believe that then we can begin to talk about the “how”. We can begin to say okay, Efosa I get that, but this is my circumstance, this is my context. How can that hold true in my circumstance? There are things like political innovation. When I talk about incentivising the government, that is an innovation. When I talk about entrepreneurs figuring out how to manage the governance issue, that's part of their innovation. So, I think, for me, it would be innovation is something that happens not after society fixes itself, but it's the process by which society fixes itself.TL: We'll do our best to help that idea spread.EO: Thank you.TL: Thank you so much. My guest today has been the author and prosperity researcher, Efosa Ejomo. Thank you very much for being with us, Efosa.EO: Absolutely, it's my pleasure. Thank you. This is a public episode. Get access to private episodes at www.ideasuntrapped.com/subscribe

Christimara Garcia es una profesional brasilera especialista en la gestión de la innovación y que además colabara en el Clayton Christensen Institute. En este episodio analizamos algunas toeria e ideas acerca de la innovación, modelos de negocios y oportunidades en Brasil, basados en las soluciones que presenta en el libro The Prosperity Paradox.

Ben & Jay are delighted to welcome back two researchers and thought leaders from the Christensen Institute, Efosa Ojomo and Rich Alton, to discuss their recent paper “Avoiding The Prosperity Paradox: How to build economic resilience in a post-COVID world.” This paper is a follow-up to the 2019 book Efosa co-authored with Dr. Clayton Christensen and Karen Dillon, The Prosperity Paradox:  How Innovation Can Lift Nations Out of Poverty. It serves as a playbook, bringing this big idea of market-creating innovation to an actionable level.This episode covers questions such as:How do you build economic resiliency in a country so that it can deal with unexpected shocks like a global pandemic?How do you size a market that isn't there?How do you spot the market that isn't there?We also discuss how the lessons of The Prosperity Paradox can be applied in the United States, where despite being the most affluent country in the world, has significant economic disparities and development needs.Everyone's home in the Twitterverse:The Christensen InstituteGlobal CCIEfosa OjomoRich AltonBen TingeyJay GerhartA Sherpa's Guide to InnovationHealth Podcast NetworkSupport the show (https://healthpodcastnetwork.com/)

So reads the title of a chapter in the book by Professor Clay Christensen, Efosa Ojomo and Karen Dillon, The Prosperity Paradox. The concept of looking at markets from different perspectives is at the heart of this optimistic yet practical book, in which the authors apply robust management theories to help leaders uncover and capture opportunities in developing markets. Read the full article at https://outsidelens.com/see-the-world-through-new-lenses/  Links and Resources Mentioned in This Episode: The Prosperity Paradox: How Innovation Can Lift Nations Out of Poverty by Clayton Christensen, Efosa Ojomo and Karen Dillon Efosa Ojomo's Website Christensen Institute How Will You Measure Your Life by Clayton Christensen, James Allworth and Karen Dillon Transforming Standards of Patient Care with Vas Narasimhan

How do nations lift themselves out of poverty? How can entrepreneurs creating lasting impact? What's the difference between a market innovation and a product innovation? Is China REALLY a planned economy? And Capitalism--is it broken?Today, Chris sits down with Efosa Ojomo, co-author of the book "The Prosperity Paradox: How Innovation Can Lift Nations Out of Poverty." They discuss the difference between consumption and non-consumption markets, how innovating in the latter can change entire countries, how we need to start re-thinking global economic development, and why it's time for a new lens with which to view China, the World Bank, the IMF, and basically everything else. Chris also points out that capitalism isn't doing so well in the United States and we should probably do something about that. Read The Prosperity ParadoxFollow Efosa on TwitterRead more of Efosa's writing on MediumAdditional stuff:Book: "The White Man's Burden" by William EasterlyFrom Axios, Article: "Too Much Money (and too few places to put it)"Check us out!Facebook: MondaypodLinkedIn: MondaypodTwitter: @Mondaypod1IG: @Mondaypod

Ben & Jay have the unique pleasure of speaking with Karen Dillon, NYT best-selling author and former editor of the Harvard Business Review, about her being in “the front seat of the Clay Christensen experience” through years of collaboration with Clay and some of their incredible colleagues.  Karen may refer to herself as “semi-retired”, but she sounds pretty busy and is having great impact on the world as a co-author of The Prosperity Paradox with Clay and Efosa Ojomo (featured in Episode 40), and as Editorial Director of BanyanGlobal Family Business Advisors.  In addition to talking about The Prosperity Paradox, Karen provides a master class on writing, reflects on her collaboration with Clay and James Allworth on How Will You Measure Your Life, and what it was like to work with Bob Moesta on Competing Against Luck.  Take a “time dash” with the Sherpas and Karen to hear how Clay's theories have evolved – and how they can impact an individual on a personal basis.@KarDillon #ProsperityParadox @CompetingvsLuck #HowWillYouMeasureYourLife@claychristensen @jamesallworth @EfosaOjomo @bmoestaStick around past the closing music for an outtake on how Twitter fulfills a Job to be Done for Karen and Jay.Medium - Why I Hired Twitter - A Sherpa's Guide to Innovation is a proud member of the Health Podcast Network @HealthPodNet -Support the show (https://healthpodcastnetwork.com/)

Ben & Jay are honored to speak with Efosa Ojomo, Global Prosperity Lead at Clayton Christensen Institute and co-author of The Prosperity Paradox with Dr. Clayton Christensen and Karen Dillon.  Efosa talks about how he came to think that business might be the answer for developing countries, why not all innovations are created equal, and why “pull” strategies can work better than “push” strategies for all stakeholders.  In addition, we discuss how The Prosperity Paradox can inspire and instruct social innovators close to home, even in generally prosperous geographies.@EfosaOjomo @GlobalCCI @christenseninst @HarvardHBS @HBS_Forum #ProsperityParadox@KarDillon @claychristensen@SherpaPod @TheBenReport @JayGerhart #InnovationEngine- A Sherpa's Guide to Innovation is a proud member of the Health Podcast Network @HealthPodNet -Support the show (https://healthpodcastnetwork.com/)