Norwegian-based Telenor ASA,  the primary shareholder in GrameenPhone in Bangladesh with operations in Pakistan, Malaysia and Thailand, bought a 60% stake in India’s Unitech Wireless at the end of 2008. The deal is expected to be finalized in Q1 of 2009.

Analysts were initally quite critical of the deal, as Unitech has no network to speak of, and Telenor’s stock dipped on the announcement.  However, Unitech Wireless holds licenses for all 22 mobile regions of India–the world’s 2nd biggest market after China–which would appear to be a valuable asset even in a very competitive market. Consider that a few years ago, Telenor spent $1.9 billion to buy a license in Serbia! Coupled with Telenor’s experience and success in South and Southeast Asia, an Indian play of this magnitude makes long-term strategic sense.

Telenor says the deal is contingent on sharing infrastructure, perhaps eyeing the 30,000-50,000 cell towers of its entrenched competitors. While unstated, Telenor is likely looking to the new company Indus Towers, started by Bharti, Vodafone Essar, and Idea Cellular,  to share network assets.

Since the announcement, Telenor has indicated it will not pay shareholder dividends in 2008 or 2009, and will take out a three-year loan to pay for its investment. Telenor’s share price, which lost 64% of its value in 2008, has recovered somewhat in early 2009 trading.

Nokia said recently it had seen no evidence that the global economic downturn was affecting demand for mobile phones in emerging markets, as it outlined plans for new handsets for developing countries, as reported in the Financial Times.

Alex Lambeek, a Nokia vice-president responsible for the Finnish company’s strategy in emerging markets, said 2008 should be the first year in which the number of handsets sold in developing countries to customers replacing their existing mobiles would surpass those to first-time buyers–particularly in India, China and Indonesia.

Asked whether Nokia had seen any evidence of slowing demand in emerging markets because of the economic downturn, Mr Lambeek told the Financial Times: “The simple answer is no. We see a very strong underlying trend of mobility taking root in emerging markets, and the growth drivers for that are still very much in place.”

Mr Lambeek said Nokia was looking at how to tailor its services strategy for emerging markets, and highlighted Wednesday’s announcement that it is linking with Webmail International, a South African telecoms company, to provide email services on its mobiles in the country. He added that Nokia was interested in developing mobile banking services for emerging markets, as well as informamtion services to aid productivity in industries such as agriculture.

Nokia’s emergence as the dominant player in developing markets comes at a time when Motorola’s handset business is ailing, and has been split off from Motorola’s other operations.

Not along ago, India’s Tata Motors introduced the Tata Nano, a car that sells for rougly $2,500 USD. Now, another India’s Spice Telecom has introduced a people’s phone selling for roughly $20. It lacks a screen and other bells and whistles, but is aimed at the “next billion” owners of cell phones in the developing world.

One of the main themes of You Can Hear Me Now is that cell phones give both producers and consumers much better pricing information and thus help create fairer and more efficient markets. Much of the evidence in support of this theory is anecdotal, and most of the rgiorous academic support is at the macro level. For example, I cite Leonard Waverman of the London Business School and his econometric “proof” that adding 10 phones per 100 in a developing country adds .6 points to annual GDP — i.e., it will rise from 4% to 4.6%.

An upcoming paper by Harvard’s Robert Jensen (The Digital Provide: Information (technology), market performance and welfare in the South Indian fisheries sector, to be published in the Quarterly Journal of Economics in August) looks at the impact of cell phones at the micro level — that is, how have cell phones affected the economic gains of fishermen in Kerala, India.

As reported in To do with the price of fish (The Economist, May 12, 2007), Jensen studies fishermen in several villages before and after cell phones were introduced, beginning in 1997. (This, of course, is what econometric research tries to do — simulate change while holding all other factors equal.) Before phones, fishermen late to their local market would find it oversupplied and have to dump some or all of their catch for lack of buyers. Once phones were introduced, they could shop amongst other markets along the coast, and bring their supply to meet the demand. Over time, this reduced waste and smoothed prices, leading to the Law of One Price. Fishermen’s profits increased by 8%, and consumer prices have dropped by 4%. Yes, a win-win — except, of course, for the middle man, who has had to reduce payouts to reflect an efficient market.

Here’s a report I submitted to the Development Through Enterprise blog at www.nextbillion.net:

“The 8th annual Harvard Social Enterprise Conference last Sunday (March 6) at the Harvard Business School drew a sellout crowd of 1,000 people. Cheryl Dorsey, president of Echoing Green, and Victoria Hale, founder and ceo of the Institute for One World Health, gave morning keynotes.

Echoing Green acts as an “angel for emerging social enterprises,” and has awarded $25 million to more than 400 entrepreneurs since 1987. Dorsey noted that when she graduated from medical school, she intended to practice medicine, but saw a Boston Globe story on the high incidence of infant mortality in Boston’s black neighborhoods. It was this “ZIP code as destiny” epiphany that led her in 1992 to start The Family Van, a community-based mobile-health unit that provides basic medical services to at-risk residents in Boston’s inner city neighborhoods, and earned her an Echoing Green fellowship.

Dr. Hale is an Ashoka Fellow festooned with awards from The Economist, Skoll Foundation, and Schwab Foundation, not to mention a MacArthur Fellowship. She is founder of the America’s first non-profit pharmaceutical company, which recently received Indian government approval (FDA approval in 2005) for a low-cost drug to combat Visceral Leishmaniasis, a deadly disease of the spleen and liver that occurs primarily in the Indian state of Bihar (as well as Nepal and Bangladesh). More “geography as destiny,” for in this state alone a sand fly bite injects the deadly parasite. She showed slides of children with inflated bellies trying to fight off infection, slides of Indian women and girls with red hair due to malnutrition. Because the disease is confined to a poor and remote region, it has not been on the radar screen for big pharma, but Hale has corralled industry to develop a low cost drug.

One World Health now has a $10, 21-day cure, but still has to deal with the issue of distribution and education. Hale notes that of all the big pharma companies who have tried to develop effective drugs to combat diseases in poor countries (Glaxo Smith Kline, Merck, Pfizer, Novartis, Eli Lilly), only Merck has succeeded—with its cure for river blindness in Africa. Hale is out to change that lamentable track record, and noted that “industry doesn’t know the world’s poorest people, doesn’t know what need doing, but they want to do well and do good. We need to ask, she says, ‘What do you need to engage? What are you afraid of?’”

The “Private Capital in Development” panel, moderated by HBS’s Michael Chu, former CEO of ACCION International, was superb. Sarah Alexander, executive director of EMPEA (Emerging Markets Private Equity Association), noted that $33 billion in private equity flowed into emerging markets in 2006, compared to $26 billion in 2005, $6.4 billion in 2004, and $3.5 billion in 2003. She also noted that the “barbarians at the gate” (Carlyle and Blackstone?) mentality was widespread in Europe and emerging markets, and that private equity’s image in developing countries was an issue for governments. They want the money; they don’t want the buyouts, the cut-and-run.

Yasminda Zaidman, a director at Acumen Fund a non-profit venture capital fund (one of my favorite oxymorons), says they use “philanthropic capital to show private capital the path.” She also mentioned the “lost year” that many social entrepreneurs face when they try to start a business and spin regulatory and financing wheels for 365 days. Acumen prefers loans to equity, as “it’s hard to see exits.” Milton Namude of the IFC split the difference, saying the IFC took a long-term horizon, using debt and equity when needed, that private equity and venture capital were a small piece of the puzzle. He urged students to “join the IFC and have it all!”

The “Past, Present and Future of Microfinance” panel, also moderated by Michael Chu, hit the many fissures in the microfinance industry. Nancy Barry, president of Women’s World Banking, started out by saying that Grameen Bank was a huge success but had not innovated on its original models, and that MFIs should not be “loan dispensers” but “financial intermediaries” that provided insurance, savings, and consumer finance. Jeffrey Ashe, manager of community finance for Oxfam America, noted that 6 of 7 borrowers come from a “handful of countries” and that his Saving for Change Initiative aims to promote savings (rather than lending) as a way of changing lives and mobilizing capital. Carlos Castello of ACCION International, spoke about the commercialization of microfinance. Of ACCION’s 33 partners, 28 are generating better than 20% returns. He pressed the idea that returns were key to sustainable success.

All panelists talked about the impact of commercialization, and saw a split in the industry between banks that moved further upstream (targeting the rich poor), and NGOs that moved further downstream (targeting the poor poor).

This conference moved the ball, however defined, forward.”

http://www.nextbillion.net/blogs/2007/03/08/report-from-harvards-social-enterprise-conference