Anita and Arielle began their conversation by reflecting on Arielle’s work in Ghana, where she has studied the Kumasi marketplace, and particularly the transition of the marketplace from an informal gathering of 25,000 vendors in old wooden stalls into a posh new building designed and built by the government using a $300 million loan backed by the UK government through Deutsche Bank. 

Arielle explained that the construction project, which was motivated by an interest in public safety, and particularly to avoid fire and other public-safety hazards, also was intended to generate tax revenue for the government by formalizing what had been many years of non-formal exchange.    The winners in this transition were certainly not the former “market Queens,” women who were leaders in particular areas of the old market.  These market Queens orchestrated trades, resolved disputes, worked with suppliers, and ensured fairness on principles that were deeply grounded in the local culture.    And yet they were marginalized and excluded – in ways that were unexpected and out of alignment with initial promises from those advocating the rebuilding of the market.   The new, posh, highly formalized market was governed in ways that reflected what Arielle described as westernized principles rather than the old ways of doing things.

Arielle gave a lot of credit to her research assistants and local collaborators in helping her to understand the Kumasi marketplace and the transition that occurred there.   Her own passion has been to understand how to make economic development better and more effective – deeper and more empowering.    Her move from political science to entrepreneurship was motivated by an interest in studying development less from a top-down perspective and more from a bottom-up perspective that emphasizes the experiences of people on the ground.  In the Kimasi marketplace, the design of the modernization project led to devastating losses for those who were persuaded to give up their stalls in the hope of a better future.

Anita asked Arielle about the roles of the British government, Deutsche Bank, the Ghanese federal and local government, and those involved in planning the transition.   Why wasn’t there enforcement of original arrangements.

Arielle conveyed a sense that there was a kind of feeling that the former arrangements were expendable.   There was no value attributed to older ways of doing things or in the promises that were made when market Queens and others were led to leave their original stalls and to abandon their practices.   Arielle explained that the press releases issued by the government regarding the marketplace made it sound like an unambiguous win for the city and the community:  electricity, air conditioning, modern toilets – and, of course, tax revenue for the city and the federal governments.  What was remarkable was the change in the gender composition of market participants in the Central marketplace from 20-30% male-led to 70-80% male-led.   The mechanisms that enabled this included industry associations and a kind of gendering of legitimized industries in the new facility.  The terms of stall acquisition had changed from a prid quo pro of re-stalling those with previous spaces to the purchasing of stalls.  Strangers moved in, she explained.

The whole system for assigning property rights changed with the opening of the new market.  Bureaucrats accomplished exclusion by requiring paperwork that didn’t exist, and by implementing processes that couldn’t be followed by market Queens and many of the women who had trusted that their informal arrangements would be honored.

Anita remarked that this sounded like it involved cheating and corruption, but particularly the kind of cheating that occurs when uninformed people are taken advantage of because of their vulnerabilities.   She asked Arielle what this means for entrepreneurship programs broadly in settings such as the Kumasi market.

Arielle observed that this issue needs a lot more study.  She explained that we need to open up the box on who wins and at what cost; and on who loses and at what cost.  What is success in these settings?  We need redefinition to account for the complexities of the local context.   A shiny new market that functions and that enables trade in some industries may look like a major success in some ways, but may obscure a lot of loss in other ways.

One thing that’s vividly clear even at this stage is that we need much deeper understanding of what the goals of projects are in a broader context?  What is your purpose and motivation?  Are you spending $300 million to build a beautiful market space or $300 million to transform the lives of the poor?  The answer to this question has profound implications for what you do.    And once you decide, you need to know who will win and who will lose, and confront the implications.  You even have to decide what constitutes what costs are; and what winning is.

Arielle reflected on what she would do if she had a magic want and could fix things the way she wanted.  The answer:   Deeper regard for the meaning and values and understandings of the local community.   How much westernization can we tolerate?  Where’s the middle ground?  What’s the hybrid solution?   How can traditional and western practices be integrated in a way that works for everyone?

Anita asked Arielle what makes her optimistic that entrepreneurship can deliver emancipation and democracy.

Arielle’s hopefulness is grounded in the capacity we have for mutual understanding through sustained conversation.   At the same time, we have to overcome unfair structures.  There are battles that need to be won to take down unacceptable structure.  Arielle sees the best future arising from entrepreneurship that is broadly construed as the creation of new understandings and processes and institutions that can delivery better outcomes for everyone.