Now it's creating employment for women within the villages and being sold for a lower price, while it previously was being mass produced by machinery and sold at a much higher profit margin.

You're right though, to the end consumer it's not that meaningful of a reduction, especially since it is an expense that is only incurred once a month.

I wonder if that was 4 rupees in 1998, vs 2.5 rupees now? According to an online inflation calculator, 1 rupee in 1998 is worth 4 rupees now, so the difference would be more like 16:2.5.

Perhaps someone could check an online Indian Amazon equivalent, not that such a place would be available to rural women anyway, but it would give a lower baseline.

For a poor family in India (and there are many), the short answer is "yes".

For a longer answer you may want to consider the personal and social hurdles he had to overcome and that not all gains are measured in money.

Well and people are making them locally in their villages and colleges instead of buying international, and mostly women at that. I know American cities that are always struggling to keep mom and pop shops alive vs. the big boxes. Meanwhile everyone says Japan's only hope to keep their labor pool growing against their greying population is to start getting women involved. So he pulled off something America and Japan are struggling with.

He is also increasing the local velocity of money. That 2.5 rupees is re-spent locally, aside from the cost of imported cellulose boards. 4 rupees spent on an import would exit, aside from the shopkeeper markup, and would not return, except as payment for exports.

The velocity of money effectively increases the availability of money. It isn't so much how many coins you have, but how often each one gets spent. If you buy from someone who hires and spends locally, that money is more likely to come back around to you faster than if you buy from someone who spends or saves it somewhere else. And that distance isn't just as the crow flies, but also psychological distance. Thus, as a software writer, I should prefer to buy from companies that spend a lot on software, even if they don't ever pay me directly. It makes more sense for me to shop at Amazon or Wal*Mart than somewhere that figures the sales excise with a desk calculator, and better for me to patronize such a business in my own town than one just like it 500 miles away.

So it's not an apples-to-apples comparison, exactly. But trying to adjust the numbers to gauge the true economic impact of this invention would take about 3 more economists than I currently keep in my back pocket.

> women's self-help groups

Community wide DIY. So yes it makes sense.

I understand the difference is considerably larger taking inflation into account (the first price was more than 10 years ago). But more than that, he's opening up sanitary pads to public discussion and reducing the taboo, which brings them to women who previously wouldn't have bought them at any price.

And of course he's also creating jobs for women and helping rural communities be more self-sufficient. There's so much more happening here than just discount products.