Survival - It's up to you

The problem inherent in designing for “the other 90%” lies in the fact that this 90% does not represent 90% of a viable global market; the other 10% have most of the world’s wealth, and unfortunately money makes the world go round. To design for the Third World could sacrifice a design firm’s profitability for its reputation, and possibly put the country into even more debt (perversely, probably to the design’s country of origin) if an item sells well there.

Regardless, for a country to improve its standards of living the whole nation needs to contribute, receiving outside aid only makes the situation more bearable in the short term -

“as UN researchers emphasise, ‘there is little or no planning to accommodate these people or provide them with services.’” Mike Davis, Planet of Slums, Verso 2006.

Couple that with the difficulty of a First World firm designing for such a culturally different and diverse population, it’s an almost overwhelming proposition. Campaigning and literature has made many acknowledge the difference in quality of life in the Third World, but only an intrepid few make the tentative step towards attempting to help.

I believe it is up to the designers themselves to decide whether it is viable to design for “the other 90%”. Of course it makes moral sense to do so, however it depends on whether it is an economically viable option and not just a satisfying deed. After all, everyone in a First World country needs to earn an income to survive, themselves.

Image from : http://www.marxist.com/Globalisation/third_world_debt.htm