Anita began by asking Rob about his work in Africa on entrepreneurship.   The field has promoted the idea of “institutional voids” in low-income countries, which Rob finds unacceptable.  What bothers you, Rob, about “institutional voids” and the risks we bring to Africa as North American scholars?

The idea that low-income places are devoid of institutions – that they are institutional deserts – is quite problematic.  There are deep and abiding institutions in these settings that may be quite different than ours.  The idea that the only way to do things is with our institutions in colonialistic – even imperialistic.

Rob’s even made the observation that teaching entrepreneurship in Africa like we do in North America can put students at real risk of violence.   What are some examples of dangerous ideas that we convey through our teaching?

Rob illustrated this problem with the example of “visibility.”  In the North American model, we teach that visibility is unambiguously good, and should be pursued by entrepreneurs.  We teach that you should hang a big sign and that you should amplify claims about your successes.  In many low-income environments, this is an invitation to be robbed.   Criminals think you are naïve and rich, and they invade.    Indeed, an NGO with which Rob works teaches burgeoning entrepreneurs the opposite tactic, namely to “Front,” which means “don’t become a target.”  

Do you see any value at all in entrepreneurship teaching in LICs?

We teach our students that it’s not fair that low-income people live less comfortably than us, but doing things to change how other people live can be damaging in ways that we don’t initially understand.   There is paradox here.   No easy answers.  We have to try, but we need to be awake, and thoughtful and careful.

We’ve got to create more spaces to be honest.  The real challenge is idealism.  People with very different systems of worth can come into conflict in ways that we need to honor.   Conflict has to be mitigated.  Consuming less is likely part of the answer too.

Rob’s work also focuses on tradeoffs between sustainability goals in pursuit of solutions to Grand Challenges.   For example, Greta Thunberg has come out against building a windfarm on Indigenous land.  For another, EVs rely on minerals mined with child labor.   How should we think about these tradeoffs, and about overcoming them?

We need to consider when communities actually want help.   Inclusive growth is really hard to figure out.  We need to get better at listening.

Why did you entitle this “pious conflict”?  What does that mean?

Well-meaning actors can come into conflict because they are operating on different systems of values.   People don’t agree what constitutes the public interest, for example.  We’ve got to figure out how to engage with people we disagree with.

What advice would Rob have for his earlier self?

Be passionate, but realistic.   Don’t defer what you believe is important.  Work early in your career on what matters to you.  And go into the field so that you can come to terms with what is really going on.

What makes Rob optimistic?

Working with people – co-authors and NGO leaders and entrepreneurs – who are doing meaningful work that they believe in.   There are so many different types of entrepreneurship:  Artists, craftspeople, customer advocates.   There are more than only Silicon Valley approaches.  

The final word from Rob:  Entrepreneurship can be a solution grand challenges.  Retain your hope.   Be humble.  Stay curious.  Rely on your passion rather than be rigid in your beliefs.