General

In every generation of entrepreneurs, there’s a story we often tell ourselves. We believe that success goes to the person who works the hardest in the room. The one who gets up earliest. The one who makes the greatest sacrifices. The one who refuses to give up, even when everyone else does. It’s a captivating story, but there’s more to it that we haven’t seen yet. But entrepreneurship does not begin on the same road for everyone. Some start on smooth, well-paved paths, while others begin their journey on uneven terrain. A buddy of mine was talking about privilege, the idea that some people start their journey on easier paths than others. What struck me was the honesty in that statement. The person openly acknowledged the paved road and honestly shared that they are still figuring out their next steps. This was a timely reminder. That tension between advantage and effort is a debate entrepreneurs everywhere must face. But for young entrepreneurs in Ghana, it adds an extra layer of complexity. Because the hard truth we rarely say out loud is that no matter who you are, or where you were born, even when the road is paved, someone still has to walk it. And sometimes, that same paved road is even different depending on who you are. Entrepreneurship culture, especially with social media in the mix, often highlights the inspiring myth of the truly self-made individual. It’s about the founder who began with nothing, the billionaire who crafted an empire from a simple dorm room, and the hustler who succeeded thanks to relentless grit. These stories often have more to them than meets the eye. Behind every “self-made” entrepreneur, there’s a rich story of circumstances: family background, educational access, networks, geography, timing, policy, and sometimes sheer luck. Each of these elements plays a part in shaping their journey, reminding us that success is rarely a solo achievement. None of this diminishes the hard work involved. But they shape the path. In Ghana, for example, two young people might both be excited to start a technology company. One could grow up in Accra, where they have easy access to fast internet, helpful mentors, and exposure to international markets. On the other hand, someone from a smaller town might see entrepreneurship as trading goods rather than creating digital platforms. This difference highlights how opportunities can vary depending on where someone grows up. Both are talented and ambitious individuals. While they begin their journeys from different points, understanding this difference doesn’t lessen their potential for success. Instead, it helps us see the path ahead more clearly. In many conversations, the word “privilege” can sometimes feel like an accusation, making people instinctively defensive. But privilege, properly understood, is not a moral judgement. Instead, it’s simply a way to describe starting conditions. Growing up in a household that values education can set a strong foundation. Attending a school where teachers nurture curiosity is also a wonderful opportunity. Additionally, having parents who introduce you to influential networks can open many doors. All these factors together can really give someone a positive start in life.  Acknowledging these advantages does not erase the effort needed to succeed. It’s a warm reminder that everyone begins the race from different points in life, and that’s perfectly okay. The truth remains that even when the path is easier, the journey still calls for momentum and perseverance. Ghana has its own versions of structural advantages and disadvantages. Consider where someone is born.  A young person growing up in Accra, Kumasi, or Takoradi usually has more opportunities to connect with business environments compared to someone in a rural district. Access to reliable electricity, access to banks, incubators, and investors can really open up more possibilities for entrepreneurs. Consider education.  Students at prestigious secondary schools or universities often find themselves connected to networks that gently guide their careers in meaningful ways. A simple chat in a university dorm can blossom into a startup partnership that lasts for decades, showcasing how valuable these early connections can be. Consider family exposure.  Some individuals grow up watching their relatives run businesses. They get to see negotiations, managing inventory, providing customer service, and taking risks up close. For them, entrepreneurship feels like a natural part of life. People come from all sorts of backgrounds, and for some, stability is about landing a government job, while others see owning a business as risky or even irresponsible. But no matter where we come from, these choices don’t determine our destiny; they just shape the landscape of our lives. Earlier this year, a talented Ghanaian friend living abroad shared her experience with me, noting that, despite her academic achievements and economic advantages, society often views her through certain assumptions. She said people tend to judge her before she even has a chance to speak. This reality resonates beyond race and gender. Across many communities, including ours, folks are often seen through perspectives that don’t truly reflect their abilities, which can be unfair and limiting. In Ghana, young entrepreneurs often face quiet challenges that aren’t immediately visible. A young founder might be overlooked because of their age, and a female entrepreneur could be underestimated in industries dominated by men. Someone from a modest background might find it harder to be taken seriously among the elite. These stories remind us of the resilience needed to break barriers and pursue dreams. These judgments rarely appear in official documents. They quietly influence conversations, negotiations, and expectations. Yet, they shape opportunities. Entrepreneurship is not just about ideas or capital; it is also about perception too. Who is trusted. Who is listened to. Who is assumed to belong. And that fact is undeniable. None of this means that success is predetermined. If it were, no entrepreneur starting from a humble background would ever find their way to success. But history, both around the world and here in Ghana, tells a different story. Many of the country’s most influential business leaders started out with modest resources.

Entrepreneurship has taken on a cinematic quality in the digital era. It is depicted through curated images, condensed into motivational slogans, and narrated with a tone of inevitability. Passion, resilience, and self-belief are portrayed as the only prerequisites for success. Growth seems linear. Recognition appears well-earned. Visibility is often equated with value. Yet economic reality is seldom so symmetrical. At the Youth Economic Forum 2026, I chose to examine this tension. Not to discourage ambition, but to place it within a more disciplined framework. Because the question confronting Africa’s young entrepreneurs is no longer whether opportunity exists. It does. The question is whether growth is being deliberately engineered for endurance or simply performed for attention. One of the first principles I presented is deceptively straightforward: growth draws attention, not applause. Attention is neutral. Its direction and consequences depend on context. Behavioural economics provides insight here. Social comparison theory, initially formulated by Leon Festinger in 1954 and further developed in behavioural research, suggests that individuals judge their own status in relation to others. Upward comparison can motivate aspiration, but it can also cause envy, particularly in settings where opportunity is viewed as limited or unequally shared. In emerging markets, where economic mobility is visible yet unequal, this effect becomes more pronounced. When an enterprise is small, it remains largely invisible to this comparative mechanism. It is seen as harmless. However, as it expands, it signals something. A marker of capability, of significance. Significance changes the incentives around you. In Ghana and across much of Africa, entrepreneurial ecosystems are closely connected. Markets intersect. Reputations spread rapidly. Capital is as much relational as it is financial. In such settings, visibility needs to be managed carefully. Public displays of success can enhance brand positioning, but they may also alter how competitors, regulators, partners, and even peers respond. This is not an argument against success. It is an argument for discretion. Thorstein Veblen’s theory of conspicuous consumption, although articulated in the late nineteenth century, remains instructive. He argued that visible displays of wealth act as social signals. In modern entrepreneurial culture, these signals go beyond luxury to include scale announcements, funding rounds, and lifestyle projection. Such signals can attract capital and talent. They can also draw scrutiny and competitive hostility. In developing economies where institutional maturity is still consolidating, scrutiny is not always impartial. It may stem from regulatory caution, competitive lobbying, or informal resistance. The prudent entrepreneur therefore differentiates between strategic communication and performative exposure. Disciplined growth survives. Displayed growth competes. The second structural insight relates to the shift from hustle to system. Across Ghana’s universities and startup communities, the language of hustle is strongly ingrained. It signifies necessity. Many founders start without institutional backing, without patient capital, and without strong infrastructure. Improvisation becomes a vital skill for survival. Energy replaces capital. But improvisation does not scale. From a governance perspective, scalable enterprises are defined more by process integrity than founder intensity. They institutionalise decision-making, separate oversight from execution, document workflows, and implement internal controls before external shocks demand them. Corporate governance theory stresses the separation of ownership and management as firms grow. Even in founder-led ventures, this principle appears through advisory boards, financial transparency, compliance systems, and performance metrics. Without these, growth increases fragility rather than resilience. If a business collapses when the founder is temporarily unavailable, it has not yet evolved into an institution. It remains an extension of personality. This distinction is particularly important in Africa’s current economic situation. The continent is undergoing demographic growth, technological spread, and cross-border trade integration through frameworks like the African Continental Free Trade Area. These changes open opportunities for scale beyond national borders. However, cross-border expansion requires standardisation, regulatory understanding, and strong governance. Energy alone cannot navigate multi-jurisdictional complexity. Data must replace intuition. Structure must replace improvisation. Governance should come before crisis. Behavioural biases also shape this transition. Founders often demonstrate overconfidence bias, a well-documented phenomenon in behavioural finance. Early success strengthens the belief that instinct alone suffices. Delegation feels risky. Control appears safer. However, over-centralisation limits organisational learning and restricts scalability. Scaling therefore demands psychological evolution. The entrepreneur must outgrow the identity of being indispensable. This can be unsettling. In many African contexts, founders are not only business leaders but also symbolic figures within their communities. Authority is personalised. Letting go of operational dominance may feel like losing influence. But sustainable enterprises are not personality cults. They are systems. This is where maturity intersects with governance. Emotional discipline becomes an economic advantage. Entrepreneurship exposes individuals to volatility. Revenue fluctuates. Partnerships fracture. Expectations escalate. In tightly connected ecosystems such as Ghana’s, reputational signals travel quickly. A single misstep can be amplified disproportionately. The natural reaction to misjudgement is defensiveness. However, strategic composure can often be more powerful. Behavioural research indicates that perceived arrogance frequently triggers punitive responses within group dynamics. Conversely, understated competence tends to reduce social friction. By understanding this structure, we can avoid emotional overreactions. Remember, not every slight needs fixing, and not every doubt calls for a rebuttal. Often, showing solid performance data and maintaining operational consistency can be more convincing than just words. Relational capital adds even more depth to the equation. In financial accounting, capital is quantified in monetary terms. In practice, particularly within African markets, relational capital often influences access to opportunities. Networks affect financing, partnerships, and market entry. However, relational capital can either support or hinder growth depending on its composition. Secure collaborators celebrate your expansion. Insecure collaborators see it as a threat. The distinction may seem intangible, but its consequences are real. Research in organisational behaviour consistently shows that psychologically safe teams perform better than fragmented ones. Trust reduces transaction costs. Alignment speeds up execution. Suspicion causes more friction. Young entrepreneurs often focus on technical competence when forming teams. Competence is necessary but not enough. Character, confidence, and long-term alignment are equally important. As enterprises grow, admiration often shifts into expectation. Expectations create pressure. If unmanaged, this pressure can distort decision-making. Short-term viewpoints start to override

If you look at how global diplomacy is developing today, you’ll see an interesting trend. Countries continue to sign treaties, join multilateral organizations, and negotiate trade agreements. But more and more, they are also forming strategic partnerships (SPs), which adds a new and exciting dimension to international relations. These partnerships seem to be all around us: EU–China Strategic Partnership, India–Africa Forum, China–Brazil Strategic Partnership, UK–Ghana Security Partnership, the recent Africa-China Partnership, and so on. For many in the business community, these terms can feel quite abstract; they sound important diplomatically, but their exact economic significance can seem unclear. Strategic partnerships are quietly transforming the way states work together. For countries like Ghana, Nigeria, Kenya, and South Africa, these collaborations are making a real difference, shaping investment flows, infrastructure projects, credit lines, defence agreements, and technology transfers. It’s inspiring to see how these relationships foster growth and progress across the continent. What Exactly Is a Strategic Partnership? A strategic partnership isn’t quite like a treaty, alliance, or trade deal. Instead, it’s something more adaptable and political. One important description calls SPs “high-level political relationships” that are designed to handle long-term interests beyond what traditional agreements can cover. Unlike formal alliances, SPs (1) are not necessarily legally binding, (2) evolve based on political priorities, (3) operate across different sectors at the same time, and (4) give states the chance to work together without making deep commitments. Think of SPs as the “executive friendship” of international diplomacy. While they may not be legally enforceable, they carry significant diplomatic weight and influence. Unlike alliances, SPs aren’t just about defence guarantees. They’re more than trade agreements, which focus on opening markets. And unlike development partnerships, they’re not solely about finances. Instead, they blend politics, economics, and strategic intent into a single framework. Why Strategic Partnerships Have Become So Popular The rise of SPs reflects the world we live in: multipolar, competitive, and full of uncertainties. Traditional diplomacy, especially formal treaties, often struggles to keep pace with the rapidly changing geopolitical landscape. And Strategic Partnerships solve several problems. They offer flexibility. A treaty is rigid. An SP allows countries to scale cooperation up or down without domestic political hurdles. In an unpredictable world, flexibility becomes a strategic advantage. They allow cooperation without requiring alignment. Two countries might not share political systems or values, but they can still work together. This explains the rise of SPs involving China, India, Turkey, or the Gulf states. They can be customised. SPs offer a broad range of cooperation: trade, tech, education, military training, climate financing, health security, infrastructure, and more. They are symbolically powerful. For rising powers, SPs signal status. For emerging economies, they signal relevance. For African states, they send a message to investors: “We have options.” Strategic Partnerships in Practice: What the Research Shows A growing body of research enhances our understanding of how strategic partnerships (SPs) function. Studies on China’s strategic partnerships with Latin America illustrate how SPs allow Beijing to expand its influence without relying on rigid alliances. China employs SPs to coordinate diplomatic efforts, secure access to resources, and promote infrastructure development. On the other hand, studies of EU strategic partnerships show a different perspective. For the EU, SPs serve as helpful tools to manage intricate relationships in a world where its usual multilateral influence is weakening. They allow Brussels to connect with major powers like India or China in a more flexible way, without depending only on formal institutions. Another interesting aspect to consider is the range of SPs, especially when conflicts arise. For instance, during the Russia–Ukraine War, China’s “strategic partnership” with Russia demonstrated its ambiguity: strong political messaging, but still avoided making firm commitments. This illustrates that not all SPs are the same; some are heavily symbolic, while others deeply operational. In all these cases, it’s clear that SPs are used as political instruments, not legal ones. Advantages of Strategic Partnerships Strategic partnerships bring several benefits, especially for emerging economies and developing regions. Access to diversified economic opportunities: Through SPs, countries can tap into new markets, supply chains, and sources of financing. For Africa, this could mean new export corridors, technology transfer, joint ventures, specialised training programmes, and capital for infrastructure. A diplomatic hedge in a divided world: SPs enable states to avoid taking sides. For African governments managing relations with the EU, US, China, India, the Gulf, and Russia, SPs make it feasible to cooperate across blocs without formal alignment. Multi-sectoral cooperation: SPs usually span several sectors such as agriculture, education, fintech, energy, defence, climate, and more. This makes them particularly valuable for economies going through structural transformation. For smaller states, signing a strategic partnership can really boost their profile. It helps them show that they matter to larger powers, which can open doors for investment opportunities and give them more bargaining power. Disadvantages and Risks of Strategic Partnerships SPs also come with challenges, and the research highlights important cautions. Ambiguity can weaken accountability: Because SPs are flexible and not legally binding, the results often rely on political will. This means commitments might fade away pretty quickly if governments change or priorities shift, which can be a challenge. Power asymmetry matters: When a smaller country enters into a Strategic Partnership (SP) with a larger one, the more powerful nation tends to guide the conversation. For example, China–Latin America collaborations show this clearly. Beijing often takes the lead in setting investment goals and planning for the future. Overlapping partnerships can create confusion: African countries often have multiple SPs with China, India, the EU, Turkey, South Korea, Saudi Arabia, UAE, and other nations. When there’s not a clear national strategy in place, these relationships might become a bit scattered or fragmented, which can make managing them more challenging. They can create dependency: When a strategic partnership turns into the primary way of attracting foreign investment or technology, there’s a chance of becoming overly reliant. This is particularly important in sectors like digital infrastructure, energy, or logistics, where such reliance can be even more significant. Limited institutional depth: SPs often lack dedicated bureaucratic structures, which