Glasses are one key to improving the economic productivity of poor people in developing countries. Photo: deepchi1 (flickr)

Poor vision may not seem like an economic problem at first glance. But according to the World Health Organization, workers with poor and uncorrected vision cost the global economy hundreds of billions of dollars in lost productivity each year.

Many of these workers struggle to put food on the table, much less purchase an expensive pair of glasses, so their vision problems go untreated. This situation may change thanks to an innovative new series of affordable glasses designs that the New York Times recently highlighted. Their genius lies in two factors: their low cost and how easy it is to adjust them. Production is cheaper when a single model can be made to fit almost anyone, which also cuts out the need for expensive doctors to write vision prescriptions.

How can glasses be one-size-fits-all? One type highlighted by The Times has lenses whose refraction can be adjusted by injecting a clear liquid into them, while another has overlapping lenses that can be adjusted by the user. These models are already improving the lives of wearers in countries like Rwanda, Afghanistan, Ghana, and Tanzania and cost $19 and $4, respectively.

Despite their potential, low-cost eyeglasses still face problems. As The New York Times explains, the glasses could cost only $1-2 per pair if produced in great enough volumes, but supply chains don't yet exist to distribute such quantities of glasses to those who need them.

The field of low-cost eyeglass production and distribution is in its infancy, but keep your eyes open for great things to come.

Photo: youngrobv (flickr)

A bike can change a life.

The benefits of a bike can range from awakening your inner child to being an eco-friendly commuter. In a developing country, however, the simple bike becomes a locally sustainable method of alleviating poverty and building healthy communities.

The bicycle means greater access to educational and economic opportunities. (Cool fact: A bike can go three or four times faster than the pedestrian and uses five times less energy.) But in communities where people make only a few hundred dollars a year, a bicycle that costs an average of $100 is financially out of reach.

To help bridge the gap, various organizations have sprung up as bicycle distributors for developing communities mostly in Africa.

World Bicycle Relief, an organization fighting the HIV/AIDS crisis in Zambia, describes the power of bicycles in its mission statement:

Simple, sustainable transportation is an essential element in disaster assistance and poverty relief. Bicycles fulfill basic needs by providing access to healthcare, education and economic development. Bicycles empower individuals, their families, and their communities. Our mission is to provide access to independence and livelihood through The Power of Bicycles.

Organizations like this depend on donated bikes, which they then ship to community-based organizations that employ and train locals as bike mechanics. In Namibia, the Bicycling Empowerment Network has bicycle workshops (called Bicycle Empowerment Centres) stocked with tools and bicycle parts that act as the hub for bike distribution and repairs.

Even grassroots groups in the U.S. have joined the cause. Bikes to Rwanda, a project supported by Stumptown Coffee in Portland, Ore., ships cargo bicycles to farmers in a Rwandan coffee cooperative.

With today’s gas prices, cycling is a more attractive alternative for residents of places from Amsterdam to Zambia. But bikes aren't limited to transport anymore. They can be modified to sharpen knives, double as an ambulance, and even filter and store water — all innovative adaptations geared towards positive social change.

What happens when you sit down with 4 mid-career Harvard business grads (who just so happen to be from Argentina, China, Tanzania and Thailand) and two Harvard economists (one ‘pro-trade’ and the other ‘ambivalent’) and ask if their fellow citizens are for or against globalization? From the NewsHour:

NewsHour's Paul Solman: So first question: How would their fellow citizens vote if asked to give globalization a simple thumbs-up, thumbs-down?

Thailand Parliament Member Kriengsak Chareonwongsak : Fifteen percent on the pro, maybe 5 percent on the against, and the rest is a silent majority.

Paul Solman: Argentina?

World Bank Former Communications Officer Yanina Budkin: Sixty-five percent no, 35 percent yes.

Paul Solman: Tanzania?

Former Prime Minister of Tanzania Frederick Sumanye: Eighty-five percent no, 15 percent yes.

Paul Solman: China?

People's Bank of China Mingyou Bao: The majority of the Chinese people will say yes to this question. Globalization is a win-win for China and the rest of the world.

Paul Solman: For the last word, we turned to the professors. At the end of the day, what did free-trader Robert Lawrence hear? A common theme.

Harvard's Robert Lawrence: It was the need to somehow manage the process in some way. Nobody believes that it should just be unleashed and left without a very strong role for government in some way.

Paul Solman: What did the more skeptical Danny Roderick hear?

Harvard's Danny Roderick: Markets will not work on their own. You need all the institutions that regulate markets, that stabilize markets, that compensate to losers and provide the safety nets, without which markets can neither be legitimate or, for that matter, efficient, if you don't have the appropriate regulatory frameworks.

Paul Solman: You're from Turkey. What would the vote be in Turkey, pro-, anti-globalization?

Danny Roderick: Globalization's a dirty word, without any doubt, so I think we would get 60 percent of the people say that it's a bad thing.

Paul Solman: And you're from South Africa originally.

Robert Lawrence: And I think probably 70 percent against.

Paul Solman: And what do you think in America, if you just asked that question?

Danny Roderick: We know the answer. We take those polls all the time, and it's, again, between 55 percent and 60 percent.

Paul Solman: Against?

Danny Roderick: Against.

Paul Solman: Against globalization, the dirty word on so many people's tongues these days.

Watch the NewsHour's video of the discussion.