General

We often toss around the word “innovation”. It’s linked with shiny gadgets, artificial intelligence, Silicon Valley, and slick startup presentations featuring words like “disruption” and “unicorn”.  Fact: innovation is not about technology alone. Some of the most transformative changes in our societies, especially here in Africa, have little to do with new devices or software. Instead, they are rooted in new ways of thinking, organising, collaborating, and adapting. In this article, I want us to take a step back, challenge assumptions, and broaden our understanding of what innovation truly means. Innovation Is Behavioural Before It’s Technical Before any piece of technology changes lives, a change in mindset must occur. Behaviour must adapt. Systems must bend. Culture must open a door. For example, mobile money in Ghana didn’t succeed solely because of the phones. It succeeded because Ghanaians were already sharing financial responsibilities communally through susu, rotating savings groups, and trust-based lending. The technology simply formalised and scaled what was already culturally ingrained. That’s behavioural innovation: when people change how they do something either before or alongside the introduction of a tool. The Illusion of the “New” Many so-called “tech disruptions” are not new. They are simply digital versions of traditional systems. Take e-commerce. It feels revolutionary. But the idea of buying something you don’t see physically and then receiving it later has existed for decades through catalogue shopping, mail order, and even village provision stores where you place orders for items that arrive within a week. The real innovation wasn’t e-commerce. It was logistical efficiency and data-driven fulfilment. Recognising this helps us stay grounded. Innovation isn’t about invention alone. It’s often about improving access, speed, scale, or trust. Innovation Happens Before, During, and After Tech Arrives Consider farming. Long before agri-tech platforms existed, farmers innovated. Now that we have technology such as drone mapping, blockchain tracking, and AI weather models, we should view it as an addition to traditional knowledge, not a replacement. The most successful innovations merge ancestral wisdom with modern tools. Innovation Can Be Administrative We often overlook this issue. Some of the biggest bottlenecks in African economies are procedural rather than technological. A regional produce market that digitises its permit process is innovating.A government office that reorganises how it handles export documentation, reducing delays from 5 days to 1, is also innovating. Administrative systems affect every sector, yet they get the least attention in conversations about innovation. Why? Because they lack glamour. However, they are highly impactful. Let me give an example from our own ecosystem: when Maxwell Logistics digitised cross-border permit processing between Ghana and Burkina Faso for our commodities shipments, we saved three days of border delays per truck. Three days. Across a hundred trucks, that’s 300 days saved. Time is money, literally, because the cost of deployed capital (interest) is reduced per trip. Time is productivity. So what if public procurement procedures became completely transparent through mobile dashboards? What if licensing departments could verify data instantly? These changes might seem like minor adjustments, but they have the potential to transform entire economies. Innovation Can Be Emotional Here’s a head-scratcher: innovation can be about how people feel. Consider customer experience. Two services can provide the same result, such as bank transfers, but the one that is easier to use, more friendly in tone, and respectful of the user’s intelligence will win every time. How you make people feel is part of your innovation stack. Let’s take insurance. Traditional micro-insurance often suffers from distrust. At WellMax Inclusive Insurance, we had to design not just the product, but the language around it. We avoided confusing jargon. We introduced follow-up calls with real human voices. We use stories, not spreadsheets. When people feel respected, they engage more. When they feel intimidated, they disengage. That emotional journey, from doubt to belief, is as critical as any base code or product launch. Innovation Can Be Invisible Some of the most powerful innovations never get noticed. Because they work so smoothly that nobody questions them. At Confideo Technologies, one of our most impactful tools is a background credit-scoring engine for our stakeholders within the MIG Ecosystem, embedded within our MIG Impact platform. No fanfare. No dashboard. Just quiet intelligence improving outcomes. The quiet systems are often the most essential. The ones that reduce burden without introducing friction. It’s worth asking: is your innovation loud, or is it lasting? Innovation Can Be Who You Involve Who’s in the room matters. Often, we think innovation comes from experts. But communities, frontline workers, and low-income users have insights that no consultant ever will. Designing an agri-marketplace? Talk to the woman in the market who knows how pricing changes by hour. Building a logistics app? Speak to the driver who knows which checkpoints cause trouble on Fridays. Innovation isn’t just what you build. It’s who you build with. In the Africa School of Entrepreneurship (ASOE), we involve students, employers, artisans, farmers, traders, and other schools in curriculum development. They are co-creators, not just beneficiaries. And involving users from design to deployment means fewer errors, faster adoption, and more meaningful outcomes. So What Should We Do Differently? Here are five practical changes we can all adopt: Broaden your understanding of innovation. Don’t restrict your search to devices or apps. Consider processes, people, feelings, and culture. Sometimes, a change in meeting structure can be more impactful than a new software subscription. True innovation often appears as common sense in hindsight. Build on what works. Don’t always aim to replace. Sometimes the best tech supports what people already do well. The goal shouldn’t always be to disrupt. It can and should be to empower. If your grandmother’s wisdom still guides efficient decisions, find a way to honour and improve it with tech, not erase it. Fund boring things. This one’s for policymakers and investors. The glamorous pilot project is tempting. But real change often comes from funding admin upgrades, HR systems, training, and distribution networks. Not exciting, but transformative. The pipes matter more than the faucets. Involve those closest to the problem. Innovation

We often discuss attracting investment into rural areas, focusing on agriculture, infrastructure, and essential services. Usually, the conversation revolves around how to draw in urban or foreign capital. Yet, after years working across agriculture, finance, technology, and community empowerment, I found a compelling alternative while writing my last article: What if the village itself was the investor? It’s a practical challenge to the prevailing narrative. A brain-scratcher. I hope to compel us to rethink capital, community participation, and rural agency fundamentally. The Origin of This Question Through my extensive interactions with farmers, traders, processors, local cooperatives, investors, and policymakers, it has become increasingly evident that rural communities often receive minimal benefit despite their vital role in value creation. The pattern remains consistent: villagers bear the risk, supply the labour, and contribute the land, yet they see little financial reward. Why should value always flow towards urban centres while risk remains rooted in rural communities? Perhaps villages possess more hidden economic strength than traditionally acknowledged. It is essential that we explore this untapped potential, recognising villagers not just as recipients but as architects of their economic futures. Reframing the Conversation The dialogue should move from “Who owns the village economy?”, the subject of my previous article, to “What does the village economy own?” This reframing transforms rural residents from passive recipients of aid to active stakeholders. It redefines charitable support as sustainable investment and shifts marginalisation towards strategic economic importance. Imagine if villagers pooled resources through cooperatives and community trusts, investing directly in local or regional enterprises. What if smallholder farmers jointly invested in solar-powered cold storage, boreholes, or technology platforms? Furthermore, community investment could extend into urban ventures, enabling rural capital to flow towards a wider range of potentially profitable opportunities. The aim is not to romanticise local capital but rather to recognise, harness, and strategically deploy it, enabling rural communities to actively participate in wider economic systems. Practical Implementation Models There are viable models to consider, each with significant potential. Pooled Land-Use Trusts: Villages consolidate land into trusts, negotiating stronger collective leasing terms with agribusinesses or developers. Such arrangements ensure ongoing dividends instead of mere rental fees, creating sustainable income sources and strengthening local bargaining power. Community Investment Funds: By shifting traditional contributions from social events (funerals & weddings) into structured investment vehicles, communities can acquire equity stakes in infrastructure projects, local businesses, or diaspora-focused housing. Financial literacy and organised training would enhance this model’s effectiveness. Micro-Equity Infrastructure Ownership: Villages share ownership of infrastructure (e.g., boreholes, energy grids) through micro-equity models, encouraging communal maintenance and allowing revenue from service provision to be reinvested into community development. Promoting local ownership of renewable energy infrastructure could further boost resilience and sustainability. Digital Crowdfunding Platforms: Digital platforms, similar to successful models in Kenya (M-Changa) and Nigeria (Farmcrowdy), can enable direct community investment in agribusinesses or larger enterprises, supporting local and national value chains. Collaborations with fintech firms could accelerate these initiatives, ensuring transparency and easy participation. Also, I need to get me a crowdfunding licence.  Global Trends Validating Village-Based Investments Far from being utopian, community-driven investments have demonstrated success worldwide. In the U.S., towns often partially own broadband networks, ensuring fair access and generating local revenues. Farmer cooperatives in Asia successfully handle profitable exports, showcasing rural communities’ capacity to participate effectively in global markets. Latin American indigenous communities have created their own banks and investment funds, fostering economic independence and resilience. These examples demonstrate feasibility, with mobile money and fintech tools increasingly making contributions, tracking, and dividend distribution easier. The existing cash flow in the informal sector, combined with youthful entrepreneurial energy returning to rural areas, further strengthens the business case. Learning from these global examples, Ghana could adopt best practices to fit local contexts and needs. The Business and Economic Case Businesspeople might rightly ask, “What’s the benefit if villages become investors?” Consider the following expanded points. Lower Investment Risks: Local stakeholders with financial interests will safeguard, uphold, and improve their investments, greatly decreasing operational risks. Loyal and Engaged Markets: Communities that invest in products or services become committed consumers, enhancing market sustainability and reliability. Lower Capital Costs: Local contributions can cut reliance on costly bank loans, particularly for medium-scale infrastructure, making the model more financially sustainable. Regulatory and Community Goodwill: Projects with local ownership usually face fewer bureaucratic hurdles and community opposition, making approval processes quicker and timelines shorter. Addressing Potential Challenges Naturally, complexities can emerge. Trust and Fund Management: It can be challenging to ensure transparent, accountable oversight mechanisms, with community-led committees or independent oversight bodies managing investments. Legal Frameworks: Modifying existing legislation to support community-owned financial structures may necessitate collaboration among communities, legal experts, and policymakers. Financial Education and Cultural Shifts: There are barriers to promoting community acceptance and training stakeholders in financial literacy and investment strategies, ensuring ongoing participation. These challenges, however, are solvable design issues rather than insurmountable obstacles, achievable through structured planning and stakeholder engagement. Broader Horizons: What Else Village Investment Unlocks Beyond the clear economic case, there are several often-overlooked areas where community-driven investment can quietly but profoundly shape rural futures. These perspectives are worth serious consideration. Environmental and Climate Resilience: By pooling resources into renewable energy, agroforestry, or water conservation, villages can go green while safeguarding their livelihoods. Community-funded solar microgrids or reforestation efforts can generate income, reduce reliance on external energy sources, and buffer against droughts or floods. It’s long-term thinking, rooted in the land. Diaspora and Rural–Urban Linkages: Many rural families already receive support from relatives in cities or abroad. However, those remittances often flow informally and unpredictably. Transparent, village-level investment platforms can turn that flow into structured support, directed towards boreholes, ICT centres, or agro-processing. The emotional bond already exists. What is needed is clarity, credibility, and coordination. Women and Youth Inclusion: Too often, the same hands hold the reins. But when women and young people lead enterprises, whether it’s shea butter cooperatives, digital services, or poultry farms, you get innovation, adaptability, and fresh energy. And practically speaking, these

The question seems simple, perhaps even rhetorical on the surface. But there’s a reason I write these articles. They reflect different snippets of my discoveries and realisations as I draw from my experience across agriculture, logistics, technology, and community empowerment. Some things become clearer, and some questions highlight our stark reality.  From my perspective, Ghana’s village economy, and indeed much of rural Africa, has been quietly losing value. Although a lot of effort has been made to improve the situation, it is what it is. Rich lands, vibrant labour, unique cultures, and abundant produce generate wealth, yet strangely, little of this wealth stays in the villages. A Quiet Transfer of Power and Wealth Consider a typical rural district in Ghana today. It has active markets, fertile soil, and resourceful people. Yet, fundamental questions don’t get immediate answers. Who really sets the prices for produce? Who owns the storage facilities? Who builds and manages the roads and sets toll charges? Who supplies fertilisers and controls the flow of credit? Yes yes yes Google has some answers but hang in there with me. The average smallholder typically does not own processing facilities. Local mills, if they exist, are usually externally owned and extract value from the villages. Does local processing infrastructure also benefit the community? Yes. But did I lie? No. Inputs such as fertilisers, improved seeds, and technical advice often come from companies based far away in cities like Accra or Kumasi, just like my own company I admit. Village shops frequently stock imported goods distributed by foreign-owned enterprises, imposing non-negotiable markups on local consumers. Even mobile money kiosks, symbols of modern commerce, sometimes operate on behalf of absentee urban owners. Consequently, wealth leaks outward, transaction after transaction, diminishing local economic power. Decisions are remote, profits externalised, and when crises hit, assistance rarely arrives. We’ve seen this happen many times. Examining this flow reveals deeper systemic issues of economic control, centralisation of decision-making, and disproportionate risk allocation. The Myth of Local Empowerment At numerous forums, “empowerment” is frequently mentioned, yet tangible empowerment remains hard to achieve. Ghana’s agricultural policies, although well-meaning, often focus narrowly on inputs rather than ownership. Who truly owns the land? Who controls the data generated from that land? Who has access to machinery and logistics networks essential for planting and harvesting? I recently told a delegation that it is my hope that my farmers will not need me after 1,000 days in our MIG Ecosystem, but will choose to work with us. I have observed farmers compelled to sell their produce early at low prices to meet urgent cash needs, only for that same produce to later re-enter the village, processed and packaged, selling for higher prices that benefit distant urban businesses. It’s injustice, and plain inefficient, and a deep disempowerment of rural communities.  Do I have that magic solution that fixes everything? No, and that’s not the point. Let’s concentrate on the question: Who Owns The Village Economy? Empowerment should be redefined to include real ownership, decision-making authority, and strategic involvement rather than just providing resources. Who Really Owns the Infrastructure? Infrastructure extends beyond physical roads and bridges. It encompasses digital systems, logistics networks, credit facilities, warehousing, cold storage, and information networks. Yet, in Ghana’s villages, these vital infrastructures are predominantly externally controlled or managed. Consider specific scenarios: Local economies continuously become hollowed out, reduced merely to labour and land resources that enrich outsiders. Reversing this trend requires infrastructure designed and managed with explicit community involvement, shared ownership models, and prioritising local needs over external extraction. Easier said than done, but needs to be said nonetheless. Cultural Commodification Without Returns Rural Ghana boasts a vibrant culture full of festivals, storytelling, and indigenous knowledge. These are often commercialised without meaningful benefits to local custodians. Who receives royalties when traditional patterns appear in global fashion? Who profits from sacred spaces turned tourist hotspots? We risk creating value flows that drain rather than enrich communities. Cultural exploitation without financial returns damages the economic vitality and dignity of rural areas. International examples from countries like Australia and Canada demonstrate how cultural intellectual property protections can safeguard local communities, ensuring a share of the profits from their heritage flows back to its true custodians. Additionally, policy frameworks promoting fair trade and equitable revenue-sharing from cultural tourism could further protect and empower rural communities. Data Ownership Is The New Economic Frontier In today’s digitised world, data is among the most valuable commodities. Rural Ghana sees limited benefit from the data it generates daily. Mobile money transactions, satellite imagery of farmland, telemedicine health data, and USSD-based surveys are all captured and controlled by external operators and intermediaries. The villages generating this data rarely see its value, yet this information shapes credit assessments, political strategies, and land-use decisions. Establishing community-owned data cooperatives could transform this landscape by enabling villages to monetise anonymised, valuable data streams. Successful examples exist in Kenya and India, and Ghana can follow suit, reclaiming economic control and empowering local communities. Such initiatives can build local capacities, fostering innovation and inclusive digital literacy. The Shadow Role of Middlemen Middlemen, often overlooked players within supply chains, hold significant influence. They operate trucks, manage storage depots, and handle export permits. These entities often prioritise profits through their strategic positioning rather than value creation. Platform cooperatives, digital logistics marketplaces owned by producers themselves, and transparent pricing tools can challenge and rebalance this power structure. Such initiatives are practical as East Africa already offers practical models that Ghana could follow. Public-private partnerships and government oversight could further disrupt exploitative practices, ensuring fairer trade relationships. Inheritance and the Silent Erosion of Control Ownership isn’t always actively taken. It can also quietly erode. In rural Ghana, productive assets such as farmland and homes are often passed down through custom and oral tradition, often lacking formal documentation. As younger generations migrate and elders pass on, these assets become vulnerable. Gradual land reallocation without explicit consent, leases granted by traditional authorities without family agreement, and government designation of