General

We like to believe that markets run the world. We like to believe that capital flows according to logic. That innovation determines winners. That business success is simply the outcome of better ideas executed with discipline and in a competitive but ultimately fair environment.It is a neat story. It suggests that with enough effort, intelligence, and persistence, anyone can rise. But it rests on a quiet assumption that is so deeply embedded that we rarely question it, the assumption that markets exist independently of power.They do not.Markets are not natural ecosystems that emerged on their own. They are constructed environments that are designed, regulated and enforced. And the architects of those environments are not entrepreneurs or investors.They are states.Every market you participate in is already shaped before you arrive. The rules are written, the boundaries defined, the risks are categorised, the currencies are stabilised, and the contracts are enforceable, or not. These lead to an uncomfortable but necessary conclusion: if you do not understand power, you are not fully participating in the market. You are operating inside a system you did not design. The Comfort of the market narrative.The idea of the “free market” is powerful not because it is entirely accurate, but because it is useful. It simplifies complexity. It removes politics from any analysis while allowing business leaders to focus on variables they feel they can control, like pricing, efficiency, innovation, and growth.And for a time, particularly in the post-Cold War period, this simplification felt justified, even in Africa. Globalisation expanded rapidly. Trade barriers fell. Supply chains stretched across continents. Capital moved at unprecedented speed. Institutions multiplied. The language of cooperation dominated. It seemed briefly as though the world had moved beyond power politics. But that was never quite true.What actually happened was more subtle and more visible now. Power became embedded in the markets rather than disappear.Instead of overt confrontation, power expressed itself through systems like financial architecture, regulatory frameworks, global institutions and technological standards. It became less visible and therefore easier to ignore for the solely business-minded.But ignoring something does not remove its influence. The market is not the game but the outcome.We tend to analyse markets as if they are the starting point. They are not. Markets are outcomes. They reflect deeper structures through legal systems, political stability, institutional credibility and global hierarchies.When capital flows into one country and avoids another, we often attribute it to “investor confidence”. But what shapes that confidence? Why is one jurisdiction considered safe and another risky, even when the underlying opportunities may be comparable?The answer is rarely just economics. It is structure. And structure is power in its most enduring form. Structural Power is winning before the game begins.There are two fundamentally different ways to win in any system. The first is competitive: you perform better than others within existing rules. The second is structural: you shape the rules so that your advantages matter more.Most businesses focus on the first. States focus on the second. This is what scholars refer to as structural power, the ability to define the environment within which all actors operate.It determines which currencies dominate global trade, which legal frameworks govern international contracts, which standards become universal, and which technologies become indispensable.Consider the persistence of the US dollar in global trade. It is not simply a matter of convenience. It is the product of decades of institutional design, geopolitical positioning, and network effects reinforced by policy.Or take the European Union’s regulatory reach. Standards set in Brussels often shape production processes far beyond Europe’s borders, not because they are imposed directly, but because access to the European market requires compliance.Or China’s infrastructure strategy across the Global South. Through financing, construction, and long-term engagement, China is not just building roads and ports but reshaping connectivity itself.These are not isolated developments. They are expressions of structural power. And they operate quietly, continuously, and effectively. The illusion of distance from Africa.One of the most persistent misconceptions in business is that geography defines exposure. It does not. In a deeply interconnected system, distance has been replaced by dependency.A policy shift in Washington affects liquidity in Accra. A regulatory decision in Brussels reshapes production in Kumasi. A disruption in Asian supply chains alters pricing in Tema within weeks. War in the Middle East? Point made.What matters is not where something happens. What matters is how systems are connected. And once you are part of a system, you are exposed to its dynamics whether you understand them or not.African economies occupy a particularly complex position within the global system. They are fully integrated into global markets by exporting commodities, importing technology, participating in financial networks and engaging with international institutions. But we often have limited influence over how those systems are structured.This creates a subtle but important asymmetry: participation without control. And that asymmetry has consequences. It means that external shocks are transmitted quickly, policy changes elsewhere have local effects and strategic options are sometimes constrained by global rules.This is not a question of capability but a question of position. And position, in a system shaped by power, matters a lot! Permission is the hidden variable.We often describe opportunity as something to be discovered. But in many cases, opportunity is something that is allowed. Markets open because rules permit them. Capital flows because systems enable it. Innovation scales because infrastructure supports it. Remove those enabling conditions, and identical ideas can produce entirely different outcomes.Which raises a question that is rarely asked openly: how much of YOUR success, MY success, is driven by ability, and how much by access to the right structure?This is not to diminish effort or talent. It is to recognise that effort and talent operate within constraints. And those constraints are not neutral. Narratives as a form of power.Not all power is material. Some of the most influential forms of power are cognitive. They are embedded in ideas, language, and perception. Narratives shape how countries are classified, how risk is priced, how opportunities are evaluated, and how decisions are justified.Terms like “emerging market”, “developing economy”,

International politics often appears governed by indisputable laws. States pursue power, mistrust rivals, and compete for survival in a world without a central authority. This view, associated with realist traditions in international relations, suggests that the basic structure of global politics is fixed and that states must behave the way they do because the system demands it. Yet this picture is incomplete. The international system is not simply imposed on states by material forces. It is also shaped by ideas, shared expectations and social practices. Understanding this insight, which is central to the constructivist tradition in international relations, helps explain why international politics evolves, why cooperation sometimes replaces rivalry, and why norms and institutions can reshape the behaviour of states. From this perspective, the international system is best understood as a social construction, a system whose rules, meanings and identities are produced and reproduced through interaction. Beyond material power For much of the twentieth century, international relations theory was dominated by materialist explanations. Realist thinkers emphasised military power, economic capability and the distribution of resources across states. The international system, they argued, is defined by anarchy and the absence of a central authority, which compels states to rely on self-help and competition for security. Constructivist scholars do not deny the importance of material capabilities. But they argue that material resources alone cannot explain how international politics works. Equally important are the shared meanings attached to those resources. Alexander Wendt famously captured this insight when he argued that the “fundamental structures of international politics are social rather than strictly material” and that these structures shape actors’ identities and interests.   Material capabilities acquire political significance only within a web of shared understandings. Nuclear weapons, for example, are not interpreted the same way regardless of who possesses them. Hundreds of British nuclear warheads pose little perceived threat to the United States, while a handful of North Korean missiles trigger intense alarm. The difference lies not in the material capabilities themselves but in the relationships and expectations between states.   Power, in other words, is not purely physical. It is socially interpreted. After typing this, I feel like I should have already known this before reading Wendt. Maybe the penny has now dropped properly. Anarchy is what states make of it One of the most influential contributions to this debate is Wendt’s argument that “anarchy is what states make of it.”   Realists typically treat anarchy as a fixed structural condition that inevitably generates competition and mistrust. Constructivists challenge this assumption. The absence of a central authority does not dictate how states must behave. Instead, the meaning of anarchy depends on the patterns of interaction among states. States can interpret anarchy in multiple ways. In some cases, it produces rivalry and suspicion, which realists describe as a security dilemma. But in other contexts, states develop cooperative relationships and mutual trust, creating what scholars call security communities. The key point is that these outcomes are not predetermined by the structure of the system itself. Rather, they emerge from repeated interactions, shared expectations and the gradual formation of collective identities. If states expect hostility, they prepare for conflict and reinforce competitive behaviour. If they develop norms of cooperation, they can transform the same anarchic system into one characterised by trust and collaboration. The structure of international politics therefore evolves over time as states interpret and reinterpret their relationships with one another. How ideas shape interests This constructivist perspective also challenges a core assumption in many traditional theories, that states have fixed, pre-defined interests. Constructivists argue that interests are not given in advance. Instead, they emerge through social processes. Actors define what they want based on their identities, roles and relationships within the international system. As Wendt explains, identities, which can be defined as relatively stable understandings of who actors are, form the basis of interests.  States act differently toward allies, rivals and partners because each relationship carries distinct meanings and expectations. These identities themselves develop through interaction. A state may see itself as a defender of international law, a regional leader, or a revolutionary challenger to the existing order. Such self-conceptions shape how it defines its interests and chooses its policies. The result is a dynamic system in which identities, interests and institutions evolve together. Social structures and political practice Constructivists also emphasise that international politics is structured by social practices, the repeated actions through which norms and expectations become embedded. Wendt describes social structures as consisting of three elements: shared knowledge, material resources and practices.  While material resources provide the physical capabilities of states, shared knowledge and practices determine how those capabilities are interpreted and used. Social structures exist only as long as they are reproduced through action. When states change their behaviour, they can transform the system itself. This insight helps explain major historical shifts in international politics. The end of the Cold War, for instance, did not result simply from changes in military capabilities. It also reflected transformations in ideas, identities and expectations among political leaders and societies. When the United States and the Soviet Union stopped treating each other as enemies, the social structure that defined the Cold War effectively disappeared. Norms and emerging technologies Constructivist insights are particularly useful in understanding how new technologies reshape international norms. Consider the emerging debate over autonomous weapons systems. These technologies raise complex legal and ethical questions, but they also illustrate how norms evolve through practice. Scholars note that standards of appropriate behaviour can emerge not only through formal negotiations but also through the everyday practices of developing, testing and deploying technologies.   As states experiment with new military tools, they gradually establish procedural norms and informal expectations about how these tools should be used. Over time, these practices may influence broader international norms and legal frameworks. The development of drone warfare offers a precedent. What began as an experimental military capability eventually reshaped expectations about remote targeting, surveillance and the acceptable use of force. Technology, therefore, does not simply alter the balance of power. It can

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.