Professor Carr post:

I hope each of you as a graduate student regularly read business news in outlets such as the Wall Street Journal, Financial Times, The Economist, etc.  If I owned a company and you interviewed with me, one of the first questions I would ask you to verify if you were truly interested and passionate about business in general (versus a technician just picking up a graduate degree) would be a current events type of a question along the lines of, “It’s great to be able to interview you.  What have you been reading about in the Wall Street Journal or Financial Times or other that has peeked your interest?  How does that relate to my company and industry and/or what you studied in your MBA program?”

If you were silent, stumbled or babbled … not good … and I might move on the the other five people I brought in to interview for the position.  Don’t shoot the messenger, and on that note …

Please see/read this week’s Wall Street Journal article, Expanding Abroad?  Avoid Cultural Gaffes.  A nice article that will come to life even more when you visit China (or India).  But also be thinking above and beyond the “don’t look like a fool” issue that this article raises.    That is, ask yourself, “What business opportunities do I see not being met or satisfied that exist due the cultural differences I am seeing?  Could I build a business around them?  If so, how?”   This is not an meaningless academic exercise.  Many of you will work for firms that do or one day will do business in or with markets like China, India, Brazil, Russia, etc. have clients based there, work with colleagues or clients from those markets, etc.

I am a big fan of James Fallows, who now writes for The Atlantic.  Fallows has written some great stuff on China over the years (e.g., “Postcards from Tomorrow’s Square”), but his latest piece that I just came across, “How America Can Rise Again”, is one of his best works and well worth reading.  It applies to what you will see in emerging economies and emerging markets such as India and China.  Click HERE to read it.  The 6 minute video interview that accompanies the article is also worth watching.

What are your take-aways from this article?    Your trip to China/India is important, in that it will help you test some of Fallow’s arguments.  Can’t do that if you stay home and only read about it in a book, and never visit the business future in a places like the PRC or India.

Submitted by: Andre Ourthiague

India gained its freedom from British rule on August 15, 1947. Less than three years after attaining freedom, India had framed a Constitution and declared itself a Republic on January 26, 1950. The Constitution was shaped to ensure justice, liberty and equality for the citizens of India. The Constitution was made flexible enough to adjust to the new demands of social and economic changes that would arise under the new democratic framework; the 94 amendments to the Indian constitution since its adoption 60 years ago is a testament to this flexibility. The Fundamental Rights of every Indian citizen include the freedom of speech, expression, belief, assembly and association, migration, and choice of occupation or trade. These rights also protect every Indian from discrimination on grounds of race, religion, creed or sex, and are enforceable in courts of law.

The Indian constitution defines the federal government that presides over the 28 states of India. India has a parliamentary republic system of government based largely on the United Kingdom. Parliamentary republics, unlike presidential systems, do not feature an executive head of state with broad executive powers because these powers are typically designated by a prime minister. The government in India is divided as follows:

LEGISLATIVE

The legislative power of the Indian government is held in the two houses of parliament. The following descriptions are taken from the Parliament of India website.

Rajya Sabha (Council of States): The Council of States consists of not more than 250 members, of whom 12 are nominated by the President of India and the rest elected. It is not subject to dissolution, one-third of its members retiring at the end of every second year. The elections to the Council are indirect. The allotted quotas of representatives of each State are elected by the members of the Legislative Assembly of that State, in accordance with the system of proportional representation by means of a single transferable vote. The nominated members are persons with special knowledge or practical experience in literature, science, art and social service. The Rajya Sabha is presided over by the Vice- President of India.

Lok Sabha (House of the People): The House of the People consists of 545 members. Of these, 530 are directly elected from the 25 States and 13 from the seven Union Territories. Two members are nominated by the President to represent the Anglo-Indian community. Unless dissolved sooner, the term of the House is five years from the date appointed for its first meeting. The Lok Sabha elects its own presiding officer, the Speaker.

EXECUTIVE

There are three primary figures that serve in the executive branch: president, vice president, and prime minister. In India, the president serves as head of state and is commander-in-chief of the armed forces, but rarely executes constitutional power on his/her own initiative. The president is elected by an electoral college comprised of members from state legislatures and from members of both houses of parliament. Once elected the president serves a five-year term and can be re-elected. The current Indian president is Pratibha Devisingh Patil.

The vice-president serves as head of the Council of States (similar to the US vice-president). The vice president is elected by the members of parliament.  The current vice president is Mohammad Hamid Ansari.

The final key figure in executive branch is the prime minister.  The prime minister is elected by majority support in the Lok Sabha. It is the prime minister that oversees the day-to-day operation of the federal government. The current Prime Minister of India is Dr. Manmohan Singh. The prime minister is also responsible for selecting a cabinet of ministers that handle policy regarding specific areas of the government. The ministers are equivalent to secretaries (state, treasury, etc) in the United States, and to ministers of China.

The prime minister and the cabinet are both accountable to the Lok Sabha. Individual lapses by a department can result in a “vote of no confidence”, and thus a forced resignation for individual ministers. A serious lapse by the prime minister and his cabinet can result in a “vote of no confidence” against the government. A “vote of no confidence” against the government requires all ministers headed by the prime minister to resign. The closest parallel we have in the United States is presidential impeachment.

JUDICIARY

The Supreme Court in India upholds and interprets the constitution. The Indian Supreme Court serves in the same capacity as the US Supreme Court.  Each state in India has a High Court that defines laws particular to the individual state. However, a uniform civil and criminal laws applies to the entire country of India. State High Courts also do not possess the power to contradict the Indian constitution. The Supreme Court is responsible for resolving disputes between state and federal governments.

The Indian government is very similar to that of the United States. The primary difference is in the power held by the Prime Minister. The roles of Indian president and prime minister are encompassed in the roles of the US president. Aside from this division of roles the systems are strikingly similar. Two legislative houses hold the law making power. An executive branch holds military decision making, vital decision making, and key appointment responsibility, and a judicial branch interprets the constitution.  Despite fighting for independence from British rule, the United Kingdom was the model of democracy that most strongly influenced the structure of the India’s government.

Submitted by: Ashley Breneman

As the days go by, and we get closer and closer to our departure to India, there are some important tips that the women must remember.  This is not to say that the guys have nothing to take precautions about, but the large cultural differences between Western women and Indian women should be noted.  All year we have been educated on the culture in India.  The most obvious difference we as Americans will need to adapt to is the conservative style of dress for women.  By now, we should all understand this difference, but what we may consider conservative here in California, may be extremely provocative in India.  Here are some tips for women that I found on numerous websites.

1. Avoid low cut, tight-fitting shirts, tank tops, skirts that fall above the knees, and shorts.
2. Short sleeve cotton shirts can be worn in warmer climates, but they should be loose fitting and not revealing.
3. Observe the locals, and dress a bit more conservatively than the most liberally dressed woman.

Some of us have talked about buying a sari once we get there.  I know some of us wondered if the Indian women would be offended if we were to wear the saris.  From the research I did, it is a treat for most Indian women to see Americans open-minded enough to immerse themselves in another culture or tradition.  However, you may/will be stared at if you wrap the sari wrong.  For those who plan on buying a sari, this LINK link shows a demonstration on how to wrap a sari.

The other option for Indian dress is the salwar kameez.  This is the slightly less dressy outfit that consists of a loose-fitting blouse that comes down past the waist, and loose-fitting pajama-like pants that are very wide at the top and very narrow at the ankles.

Now how does all this relate to the business aspect of the trip?  Lets put it this way, how many of you would walk into an interview wearing just a bathing suit?  I know this sounds extreme, but revealing clothing can come across just as offensive to the men and women in India.  While in India, I plan on buying at least one of these outfits to try and blend in as much as possible.  Dressing appropriately will not only help to avoid lewd comments and glares, but we will be much more respected by those we encounter.  Besides, there is little knowledge to gain if we enter India assuming the same cultural bias that we experience here in the United States.

For more clothing tips and some extra safety tips, see the below article written by Beth Whitman, an American writer who spent a month traveling through India.

For Women Traveling to India: Preparing for Safe and Culturally Respectful Immersion

Submitted by: Morgan O’Hara

To piggyback off two recent posts – the first about Zakaria’s manliness, the second about Bollywood’s appeal – I’d like to share an article on how American media corporations are getting fed up of chasing the carrot in China, and are shifting their energy towards India.

When it comes to the media industry, India is more open than China, and its demographic and economic trends excite media execs just the same. A few weeks ago, Ravi Asnani spoke to us about the potential of India’s youth, and how their drive and talent is transforming the way business is done. Ravi also talked about how there are plenty opportunities to sell to Indians, many of whom are happy to spend top dollar for an iPhone. Controlling the broadcasting channels that reach India’s up-and-coming middle class youth is BIG business.

But what about China? We all know how successful the Chinese government has been in facilitating the development of labor-intensive industries, often via foreign investment. Yet loosening controls over the programming that reaches its citizens is still taboo. It seems like the perfect example of China’s government wanting to have it both ways.

After reading the article, I wonder whether China’s hesitancy to work with Western media firms is a reflection of the ruling class’ paranoia, or are these media firms being short-sighted? Should they work harder and smarter to get their foot in the door? Or is China being unreasonable and is it time for media companies to look elsewhere?

What surprises me is how the Chinese censors haven’t caught onto the subversive nature of “Spongebob SquarePants.” That show is a psychedelic drug transmitted through television waves. Also ironic is how China’s nationalistic spirit may wedge open the broadcasting gates. The article posits that China’s envy of Slumdog Millionaire’s success will spawn action in China’s movie industry, which will in turn benefit American studios. Nothing like some Chindia rivalry to spur business. Your thoughts?

Submitted by: Raquel Rusing

Body: Few of you may know that I have danced the dances and sang the songs of Bollywood… right here at Cal Poly!

Each year a group of students organize a Student Spring Dance Show to promote Cal Poly’s under-recognized dance department. Those in charge of organizing the event also serve as choreographers who teach routines to voluntary students for the duration of the quarter. The routines are a wide variety of styles aimed to educate about the diversification that exists in dance.

For the last five years, I’ve taught a hip-hop class, but have also chosen to participate in a colleague’s Bollywood number. I was initially very skeptical because of its cheesy nature and awkward movements, but through some miraculous leap of faith, I joined nonetheless and fell in love with the energy and colors of Bollywood. Now, after Dr. Singh’s discussion of India at our last Chindia meeting, I have no choice but to share more!

Obviously when someone hears Bollywood, they think Hollywood. And they should because the name is derived from the combination of Bombay (the former name of Mumbai and the central hub for this genre of film) and Hollywood. As Alex Van Dalen said in our meeting, these films are purposely unrealistic, similar to Western musicals during the World Wars, because they serve as a form of escapism. They incorporate catchy song-and-dance numbers, less than logical transitions between everyday sets to extravagant and exotic locations, extended melodramatic moments and formulaic storylines. However, despite that these types of film have only become increasingly popular within the last decade overseas, Bollywood has been around since the American Great Depression.

The shift of popularity to the Western world is mainly attributed to Baz Luhrmann’s 2001 film Moulin Rouge!, which was directly influenced by the Bollywood style. The play within the film follows the storyline of an ancient Sanskrit drama, The Little Clay Cart, and Nicole Kidman leads a Bollywood-styled dance sequence to the famous song Chamma Chamma from a 1998 Bollywood film, China Gate.

The China Gate version can be accessed here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FKtdZDE_orw

The Moulin Rouge! version can be accessed here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=thbqyJxP0ok

The music is probably what makes or breaks an experience for a member of the audience. If you don’t catch onto the tune… you might as well not watch the films. The music itself is called filmi (meaning “of films” in Hindi) and although the actors and actresses are dancing, none are singing. The entire film is lip-synced and the majority of the actors and actresses don’t even record in the studio. They enlist professional playback singers. Does this remind anyone of the Chinese incident during the Olympics – the young cute girl performs to the voice of a hidden and less attractive, but vocally gifted young girl? I thought it might until I found out that most of the playback singers are featured with pride during the opening credits and have their own fan base. Furthermore, to promote interest in the movie, the soundtracks are often released prior to the movie itself.

By the by, if you’re a male thinking that you’re not interested in these chick flicks, let me inform you of a couple of reasons for why you should think about watching them.

Item #1: Snoop Dogg. That’s right. Last year D-O-double-G signed up for a guest appearance on the title track of Singh is Kinng.

Here are the words of Mr. Snoop himself from a NY Times article:

“I really dig how much music is infused with the movies in Bollywood… Lots of hip-hop tracks sample Indian music, and a lot of their music sounds like it was influenced by hip-hop. Snoop Dogg’s got love for everybody. I like how the Punjabis get down; the way they dress is fresh and they got a real appreciation for music. Watch out y’all. I’m coming to take over Bollywood… this is just the beginning.”

Check out the music video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E1BgMwyZhtU

Item #2: Have you seen the ladies?! As Dr. Singh would agree, let me show you some of these beauties.

Mallika Sherawat

Priyanka Chopra

Aishwarya Rai

Item #3: Business opportunities. Yep. I read a Time Magazine Article called Ring, Ring, Bollywood Calling! and the mentioned company by the name of Saavn (acronym for South Asian Audio/Visual Network) is profiting significantly thanks to Bollywood.

According to the article, “[Saavn] controls global distribution rights, outside India, to a massive number of Bollywood films, songs, albums and music videos, all downloadable to iPods, MP3 players, cell phones and computers. And if consumers in America are captivated by the song-and-dance… Saavn believes its offerings will be attractive marketing tools for U.S. companies. [They] have already conducted a brand-marketing campaign for Verizon. Half a dozen major U.S. companies are now in discussion to use Saavn’s content to pursue the same market. The wealth and education level of South Asian consumers in the U.S. make [Saavn] a desirable target.”

This makes me think of William Chillingworth’s discussion about owning exclusive rights to Western commodities overseas. Is there a possibility for a profitable reverse – exclusive rights to Indian commodities in the U.S.? Will Saavn continue to grow as the popularity of Bollywood rises in the West or is this another passing fad? What do you think of the Bollywood craze? Will it be as successful as Hollywood? Domestically? Globally? What are some other business opportunities available through this industry both directly and indirectly?

Submitted by: Andrew Welborn

I am excited as we travel to two very different countries to compare the many cultural differences. I thought a quick comparison of transit systems would be in order, as we will have the chance to experience some that outshine American systems and some that are downright scary. The U.S. is rapidly falling behind other countries in regards to a transit system and this has impacted our competitiveness in the manufacturing industry. The U.S. as a whole is a rather poor example of mass transit with the exception of a few localized areas around the country. China and India still require leaps and bounds to achieve effective transportation, but the decisions that they make now will affect the world in the near future. They have the opportunity to create truly efficient transport systems to connect the billions of people that make up each country. Here are two links for a quick rundown of the overall transportation systems in both China and India.

”China’s Transportation System”

“India’s Transportation System”

By now we should all know how involved the government in China is with infrastructure and growth. They have been building on a simply massive scale with little regard for the environment, but are now facing congestion in major cities due to the massive growth. They are continually implementing new projects for mass transportation that rival the technological prowess of the most advanced countries, but is this really what China needs to go forth as more and more people are increasing their disposable income and want the status symbol a car brings?

As Cece Reyes posted previously, India has a rapidly growing market in ultra low-priced cars. These vehicles would be a major upgrade to the scooters families use, but does India have the infrastructure necessary to accommodate another 500,000 vehicles per year from one manufacturer? Thomas Friedman doesn’t think so. Read link for his views on where India should be heading.

Other links about the future of India’s transportation system:

“A Smoother Passage Through India”

“Making Mass Transit a Priority in India”

“Video on Train Safety in India”

As both countries modernize their systems, a big question is where the capital will come from. In China the obvious answer will be from the government. However, in India that question is currently up for debate, and who pays for the system will have a big impact on what the system will be and how well it will function in the interest of the public.

Both countries are using a diverse mix of transportation systems, and both are seeing a growth in the ownership of cars. This may be all good and fine now, but in five years will this begin to stifle growth in urban areas as more and more cars travel in an already congested city? Not to mention the increased pollution and use of resources. On the flip side if the countries firmly embrace mass transit as they grow, will the populace begin to demand more personal vehicles and leave the mass transit systems unused? There is no easy answer, and a mix of systems would do the trick, but what mix would be best for each country?

My questions for you are: What are the complications that will need to be addressed in both countries to continue to progress their transit systems? What are the business implications of following the U.S. model versus mass transit? How do these major decisions on transportation systems affect the rest of the world from a resource view? There is the ideal solution from an environmental and conservationist perspective, but which direction do you see each country progressing in the near future and what role will business play?

Submitted by: Justin Miller

It’s very easy as an American to assume that with all of our expendable income, we are the best place to sell consumer products. We are where the consumerist culture started. Everyone wants the newest cars, the biggest TVs and every exciting new gadget on the market. But with our current financial crisis, America may no longer be the best place to sell products. I’m not trying to say that Americans wont continue to buy things they don’t need, but they certainly aren’t going to be spending as much as they used to.

Our obsession with buying things that we can’t afford has lead to the current credit crisis as many Americans were not able to pay off the loans on their houses. We learned to buy the things we wanted with other people’s money, with the hopes that we could pay it off later. The following article is an example of how an “old” economy in rural India is functioning well despite the current global economic crisis.

Click here for the article in the Washington Post: Click here

In the article, it talks about a family who just bought a $10,000 brand new car. In cash. Yes, that’s right, they paid for it in cash. They don’t owe payments on it, it’s theirs. According to the article, the reason that the economy in rural India has been isolated from global economy is that most purchases are made in cash. People don’t have to worry about people being able to loan them the money they need because they are buying with the money that they have. Additionally, the Indian government has put a lot of money in investing in the infrastructure of it’s rural areas and the price for wheat has increased by 65% over the past four years. This has lead to an increase in disposable income for the rural farmers, which they are using to purchase new clothes, TVs, and cars.

The interesting thing about this rural economy is that companies are finding it much more profitable to market to the rural markets instead of the big cities. For example, 60% of car sales for General Motors India were from rural and small towns. This is an interesting contrast from the general tendency for companies to focus on the money to be made from big cities.

Awhile ago I read an article that said that Americans have been living lives that were outside of the their means, and that current market recession is the economy shifting back to where it would have been if we bought what we could afford. What do you think? What if Americans, like those in rural India, only bought everything cash? Would we have the current economic problems that we’re having? I’m not trying to say that all lending is bad, as some things, like buying a house, would be almost impossible without it, but how much lending does it take before it’s detrimental to our society?

Submitted by: Logan Travis

It seems like eons have passed since school began. Each of us has crammed our brains nearly full of business wisdom and is probably suffering from massive headaches. With so much knowledge, how many remember Lonnie Hodge? Here’s a link to Lonnie’s bio at Culture Fish Media with a hopefully memory jumpstarting picture. Mr. Hodge spoke to us about the significant marketing differences between the U.S. and China. He also mentioned a little website called Twitter and its role instantly spreading the news of China’s devastating earthquakes in May 2008.

I was thrilled at the power of this micro-blog (from Wikipedia: “Micro-blogging is a form of multimedia blogging that allows users to send brief text updates or micromedia such as photos or audio clips and publish them, either to be viewed by anyone or by a restricted group which can be chosen by the user.”) to bust through the heavily filtered Chinese media in mere moments. Lonnie so convinced me of its potential that I went home that night and signed up. However, the following morning reality set in – as it often does – as I discovered almost no one I knew had a Twitter account. How could this be? Most everyone I talked to hadn’t even heard of the site that singlehandedly announced a monstrous natural disaster to the world. Feeling unfulfilled, I resided Twitter to a decidedly non-SLO (and potentially non-American) phenomenon and let it slip into cobwebbed disarray.

Until The Wall Street Journal started talking about it.

Search “Twitter” on WSJ.com and you have to comb through thirteen pages of results to get see a 2008 date. Along the way you’ll find a How to Twitter, an article detailing (Not Quite) Earning a Living on Twitter, even a Brazilian telecommunication company advertising its new fiber optic services via a Twitter celebrity: Marcelo Tas? Not wanting to feel the utter dissatisfaction of advertising my daily activities to the void yet again, I did a little research. My search yielded information in support of two competing arguments: 1) Twitter is a populist juggernaut disseminating massive amounts if unbiased information to the world and 2) Twitter’s usage statistics don’t match its hype nor do the vast majority of users utilize its world-changing potential.

Facts Advancing Twitter as the Next Voice of the Public:

Lonnie brought Twitter to my attention with his story of the China earthquakes. He enthralled me with users spreading detailed information before most major news channels had even said word one the event. This was not a standalone event. An article in Hong Kong’s Media magazine wrote on Twitter’s role in the March 2008 Tibetan riots:

The aftermath of March’s protests in Tibet highlighted the growing importance of user-generated content in China. Netizens turned to online media to voice their opinions both of the riots, and of the Western media’s coverage of them … Similarly, microblogging services such as Twitter and Fanfou provided an outlet for the feelings of users in Tibet and elsewhere in China. Several blogs monitored these ‘Tweets’ to discover first what was happening in Tibet, then how others in China were reacting to events. (Davis, Anita. “Tibet Riots Spark Social Media Surge.” Media Apr. 2008: 10. Found via ABI/Inform.)

The author suggests “… these platforms are especially valued by Chinese citizens for whom this level of freedom of speech has not existed in the past.” If it is true, Twitter and sites like it may become a major media outlet in China and other Asian nations.

It certainly has the numbers. Twitter went from 600,000 users a year ago to over 6 million. That is a 1,000 fold increase in less than a year! Plus, this is only a measure of Twitter’s domestic web traffic; it does not include Tweets from cell-phones nor users overseas. The increased activity recently caught Business Week’s attention:

The microblogging service Twitter has caught on with everyone from celeb Ashton Kutcher to CEOs. Yet for all the buzz, Twitter has always seemed more novelty than business … It turns out there is. In fact, there’s growing evidence that Twitter, a company with no revenues today, could be worth several hundred million dollars. Two sources say social-networking service Facebook offered to acquire Twitter late last year for $500 million in cash and stock … What’s the big appeal? Twitter’s growth, for starters. Six million people use the service, up from 600,000 a year ago, according to Web traffic monitor Compete, and those numbers don’t include people who Twitter from cell phones or overseas. (Green, Heather, Robert Hof, and Spencer Ante. “Six Million Users: Nothing to Twitter At.” Business Week 16 Mar. 2009: 51. Found via ABI/Inform.)

Business Week’s point it less social-revolution and more economic profit. Yet, it is quite difficult to argue with the numbers.

So, Who are These 6 Million People and What do They Say?

It isn’t as difficult as it might seem to argue numbers. Only a month before the Tibet outcry and three months prior to the earthquakes, Twitter released a blog of its usage statistics. China is decidedly absent. Why? Reading through the comments I found one from an apparent Twitter employee: “Dear Australia, We love you. But we had to choose a cut-off point for this particular chart, which we hastily put at 10 — i.e., the top 10 countries outside the U.S. by twitter.com visits. Currently, Australia is number 12. Try harder! :)”

A little harsh. More recent statistics from the Alexa show China much higher in Tweets than the year before. It is ranked #5 (and India at a surprising #4) claiming approximately 3.2% of user visits. This is significantly less than the U.S. at 47.5% which begs the question, “Who Tweets?” I still know fewer than 10 people on Twitter and from asking classmates I don’t believe I’m alone. But the site has 6 million users meaning almost 3 million in the U.S. This gross discrepancy comes from defining potential world impact on users rather than usage. It seems like a minor issue. Yet as the Alexa numbers suggest, Twitter’s overall web traffic at 0.2176% of world usage (3 month average) means only a small fraction of its accounts are active.

Additionally, the question of what information is rushing across Twitter’s server raises concerns. For those of you without Twitter accounts, take a look at a site called Twistori. Clicking one of the six keywords on the left will cause the site to display – in real time – all posts containing that word. Anyone want to time how long it takes to see some profound insight into China’s media restrictions? Or even India’s upcoming elections? I hope you have several days to dedicate yourself.

I’m also sad to say that one Tweet that catches your attention may be a plant. Astroturfing has grown increasingly common on social sites. Sara Yin with Hong Kong’s Media reports:

In the pre-internet days, astroturfing was limited to politics. The phrase refers to the practice of paying people to create fake grassroots (hence the pun) sentiment … But in China’s online sector, astroturfing has become a media issue, with reports of students hired to feed messages on bulletin boards (BBS), social networks, blogs, even Twitter … One of the biggest astroturfers is the Chinese Government, which has built up an army of blogging students (known as 50 Centers, as the typical price for their services is 50 cents per post) to fend off what they see as hostile forces on the web. These pounce on online discussions that touch on sensitive issues and neutralise them, sometimes through on-message posts, other times by rendering the discussion meaningless through banal posts. (Yin, Sara. “Astroturfing.” Media 7 Aug. 2008: 9. Found via ABI/Inform).

Tweet Your Day Away

So, what do you think? Twitter certainly offers some amazing benefits, particularly in mass information dissemination. That information may prove utterly useless though if it only comes from a small group of active users especially if they Tweet with ulterior motives. Personally, I plan to keep my account active. I even started posting again primarily to break up some day-long study sessions. I don’t have any followers and only keep an eye on a few friends. It’s just strangely appealing to broadcast my actions and ideas onto the web. Maybe you’ll agree.

Submitted by: Ashley Breneman

Most of us have never known what it means to be poor.  I know as college students we may feel constantly broke, but we never wonder if we will have the basic necessities to survive including food, water, and shelter.  Many of us may be boggled down in student loans at the moment, but we have an understanding that these loans will be paid off soon enough after starting our careers. 

A portion of the population in India has risen out of poverty in recent years due to the increases in job opportunities that have resulted from outsourcing.  However, a large part of the population lives on just $2 a day and is living in unstable and crowded shanties.  Many of these individuals also carry a heavy amount of debt with no way to repay them.  This has caused men and women like Malika to resort to the unthinkable, selling their body parts for money.

See this National Geographic episode Woman Sells Her Body Parts describing Malika’s story and how her neighbor Raji ripped her off.  Although the trading of body parts is illegal in India, it continues to occur because of back-alley brokers, corrupt officials, doctors and desperate individuals.  The Indian government passed Act 42: The Transplantation of Human Organs Act in order to block the trade of human organs.  This Act prohibits all commercial trading of body parts and allows organs to be removed only for therapeutic purposes.  A few problems exist with this law.  The first problem is that the last clause allows the law to be manipulated.  Who is to say which kidneys were removed for therapy and which were not?  The second problem results from the fact that many states have not yet adopted this act. 

The buying and selling of human organs is a highly controversial issue.  Before making a decision on whether you think this black market should continue, here are a few matters to think about:

 If law continues and is strongly enforced:
-The number of people who may die without the kidneys from India
-Citizens in the U.S. are paying upwards of $40,000 and the donors are only receiving about $3,000 of this
-Indians will likely continue to sell kidneys; which may result in decreased medical care for the donors

 If trade becomes legalized:
 -Donors may get to see a larger portion of the money
 -Many lives will be saved
-Indians will be able to repay debt and/or have the money necessary to support their family

In my opinion, I believe the market will continue as long as there are desperate Indians wanting to rise out of poverty and a continued demand from foreigners.  In this case, I believe it is much more safe for the donor’s health to have the procedure done in a clean environment as opposed to some back alley shack.  The ultimate decision should come down to the donor as long as they are not forced into the situation. 

Interestingly enough, the body parts trade is not only limited to India.  China is currently engaging in the trade, but in a much more invasive and unethical way.  Chinese nationals have been executing prisoners with their prime agenda being to harvest and sell their organs.  Contrary to the law of India, China has no opposition to the body parts trade as long as the donations are voluntary.  Clearly this is not the case with the prisoners.  See this related article in the Times Body Parts for Sale. 

What are your thoughts of this thriving market in both China and India?