What is an ‘entrepreneurial tribe’? At first glance, the phrase could cause confusion. It sounds like an oxymoron in the context of the 21st century. In fact, however, the entrepreneurial tribe is a concept that may be the answer to giving African farming the ‘makeover’ it needs and achieving food sovereignty on the continent. In this chat with Foodlog founder Dick Veerman, Dr. Otto Kroesen introduces and explains the concept of tribal entrepreneurship. Surprisingly the interview also addresses tribalisation as a way out of the identity crises of people in modern Western societies. In Kroesen's opinion, the tribe could bring back the lost sense of 'we'.
A farming ‘makeover’
Kroesen begins the interview by establishing a chain of reasoning for why the entrepreneurial tribe is necessary in the context of food security in African nations. Africa at large still does not have food sovereignty, which is in part due to the fact that much farming on the continent is still subsistence based, looked down upon, and mostly executed by women or those who did not find other jobs. As such, there is a need to improve the image of farming on the continent as a whole so that it doesn’t have a negative association.
The entrepreneurial tribe: an introduction
What does ‘entrepreneurial tribe’ mean and entail? The former part of the concept is quite self-explanatory, as entrepreneurship has a major role in the world economy today. As Dr. Kroesen writes, modern day entrepreneurial networks are “exemplifications of the introduction of tribal bands and strong group loyalties right in the heart of modern society.”
The tribal aspect stems from the rich history of tribes in Africa, dating back centuries. As Dr. Kroesen explains, in the past, Africans went about agriculture with tribes at the centre of the system. Tribes, typically didn’t trust each other, engaged in extensive low cost agriculture to feed only their own. This was particularly because they wanted to exist and be self-sufficient to avoid taxes, a trend which continued through colonialism. However, after colonialism and the formation of new countries and borders, the tribes no longer had the same freedom to move around. Thus, though the in-group tribal mentality and bonds stayed, the self-sufficiency was now on a lower level, which explains trends in modern day African household subsistence farming.
Along similar lines, the most interesting and thought provoking part of the interview is perhaps when Dr. Kroesen takes the discussion a step further and points out that the West could learn from Africa and re-tribalise itself. Dr. Kroesen makes an astute observation that, “Africa has too many ‘we groups’ which do not trust each other at all, but in the West, we don’t have any group at all anymore.” Thus, it seems that while the West is set on the entrepreneurial aspect, there would be even more added value to society if traditional tribal values were re-introduced.
Is tribal entrepreneurship and trust-building the answer to food sovereignty in Africa? Furthermore, what thoughts and patterns would be necessary to change at the grassroots level before such a concept could be introduced and welcomed? And: do you think Western countries would benefit from a touch of new tribalism as well? What is your opinion?
Kroesen begins the interview by establishing a chain of reasoning for why the entrepreneurial tribe is necessary in the context of food security in African nations. Africa at large still does not have food sovereignty, which is in part due to the fact that much farming on the continent is still subsistence based, looked down upon, and mostly executed by women or those who did not find other jobs. As such, there is a need to improve the image of farming on the continent as a whole so that it doesn’t have a negative association.
You don’t invest [in farming], because that is too risky, but you try to survive with little means outside the imperial structureHere, it may be important to point out other regional specificities that hinder large scale and more centralised farming practices in many African countries. One of these is a lack of trust in authority above and beyond the tribal level. As Dr. Kroesen explains in his book (Cross-cultural Entrepreneurship and Social Transformation), the lack of a universalist state, as well as in-group tribal bonds that are stronger than any sense of national loyalty are huge barriers to economic development on the continent. Thus, the problem lies in “how to get an effective and accountable hierarchical authority above and beyond tribal and clannish loyalties”. Herein comes the entrepreneurial tribe, which may be the answer to this problem.
The entrepreneurial tribe: an introduction
What does ‘entrepreneurial tribe’ mean and entail? The former part of the concept is quite self-explanatory, as entrepreneurship has a major role in the world economy today. As Dr. Kroesen writes, modern day entrepreneurial networks are “exemplifications of the introduction of tribal bands and strong group loyalties right in the heart of modern society.”
The tribal aspect stems from the rich history of tribes in Africa, dating back centuries. As Dr. Kroesen explains, in the past, Africans went about agriculture with tribes at the centre of the system. Tribes, typically didn’t trust each other, engaged in extensive low cost agriculture to feed only their own. This was particularly because they wanted to exist and be self-sufficient to avoid taxes, a trend which continued through colonialism. However, after colonialism and the formation of new countries and borders, the tribes no longer had the same freedom to move around. Thus, though the in-group tribal mentality and bonds stayed, the self-sufficiency was now on a lower level, which explains trends in modern day African household subsistence farming.
So you need a tribal team, as it were, so that people from a different background work towards a common goalSo, is the entrepreneurial tribe just a group of African small-farm owners who share a common national/ethnic background? Not quite. In Dr. Kroesen’s words, the entrepreneurial tribe is not a traditional tribe, because it is based in economics, and not politics. Therefore, members of an entrepreneurial tribe would not be tied together by traditional bonds such as identity politics, but by their entrepreneurial spirit instead. In other words, the proposal of an entrepreneurial tribe is an attempt to apply traditional African concepts of loyalty and partnership that fuel in-group tribal mentality to the economic sphere, thus decreasing mistrust between groups and increasing opportunities for more effective and efficient farming. In his book, Dr. Kroesen points this concept in action in the guilds of the Middle Ages in Europe, which were highly successful in uniting their members.
...[in the West] we have fragmented individuals in big machine-like societies, and they are all in search of their identityDe-tribalisation in Africa, re-tribalisation in the West
Along similar lines, the most interesting and thought provoking part of the interview is perhaps when Dr. Kroesen takes the discussion a step further and points out that the West could learn from Africa and re-tribalise itself. Dr. Kroesen makes an astute observation that, “Africa has too many ‘we groups’ which do not trust each other at all, but in the West, we don’t have any group at all anymore.” Thus, it seems that while the West is set on the entrepreneurial aspect, there would be even more added value to society if traditional tribal values were re-introduced.
Is tribal entrepreneurship and trust-building the answer to food sovereignty in Africa? Furthermore, what thoughts and patterns would be necessary to change at the grassroots level before such a concept could be introduced and welcomed? And: do you think Western countries would benefit from a touch of new tribalism as well? What is your opinion?
Dr. Otto Kroesen was trained as a theologian and still preaches every now and then. Since 1997 he teaches at Delft University of Technology. He is now an associate professor in Philosophy and Technology Dynamics. His projects and research focus on cross-cultural entrepreneurship in various African nations. His book, Cross-cultural Entrepreneurship and Social Transformation, discusses the concepts above in even more detail, as well as other research in the fields of development and entrepreneurship.
Kroesen considers the “entrepreneurial tribe” as an emerging solution for the predicament of both Africa and western societies. The distrust between different ethnic groups in Africa, vertical networks of dependency and patrimonialism, institutional voids, create serious obstacles for successful entrepreneurship. In the old days extensive low cost agriculture was the solution for clans and families to stay out of the (taxing) regime of empires. Now strong “entrepreneurial tribes” are required to navigate an environment of adverse institutional conditions. Western societies need the “entrepreneurial tribe” for the opposite reason. Here increasingly people are without any belongingness or identity. Right wing politicians exhibit the promise of a petrified national identity and belongingness. But the “entrepreneurial tribe”, not in politics, but in the sphere of economics, is the solution also for the Western societies. Student teams operating on behalf of African enterprises, community projects, startups, are examples of such involvement. The “entrepreneurial tribe” also enhances the capacity and resilience of its teammembers. Human faces become more human if they are able to face challenges.
Kroesen considers the “entrepreneurial tribe” as an emerging solution for the predicament of both Africa and western societies. The distrust between different ethnic groups in Africa, vertical networks of dependency and patrimonialism, institutional voids, create serious obstacles for successful entrepreneurship. In the old days extensive low cost agriculture was the solution for clans and families to stay out of the (taxing) regime of empires. Now strong “entrepreneurial tribes” are required to navigate an environment of adverse institutional conditions. Western societies need the “entrepreneurial tribe” for the opposite reason. Here increasingly people are without any belongingness or identity. Right wing politicians exhibit the promise of a petrified national identity and belongingness. But the “entrepreneurial tribe”, not in politics, but in the sphere of economics, is the solution also for the Western societies. Student teams operating on behalf of African enterprises, community projects, startups, are examples of such involvement. The “entrepreneurial tribe” also enhances the capacity and resilience of its teammembers. Human faces become more human if they are able to face challenges.
Related
Thanks for your comment, Otto.
I agree, education is crucial, especially the combination of theory and practice. When I studied tropical agriculture in Wageningen in the 1970s, after your BSc you went six months to a tropical country to do some practical work, before continuing with the MSc part of the education. Success with your students.
A good deal of my time goes to the supervision of students internships for entrepreneurship in emerging economies. At TUDelft there is a minor program “International Entrepreneurship and Development”. Each year 60 students participate in it. Three months of preparation are followed by three months of internship. Students pay for their journey and living costs themselves, which testifies to their motivation. In teams of 3 students they may develop a business plan, do marketing research, construct a prototype, provide on-the-job training.
Students for instance built a biogas digester for one of the few black South Africa farmers. This group studied physics and they knew nothing about biogas. They bought a book, read it, took a carpenter on board and a mason. Now the farmer also bought some solar panels and he withdrew from the (quite expensive and unreliable) grid in South Africa. After seven years the biogas station is still functioning. In many places students were involved in the training of capacity of smallholder farmers in dealing with new agricultural methods, also simple things like bookkeeping in an excel sheet in order to make it possible to do farming in an entrepreneurial way. For three months they cooperated with the farmer and together with him they built a plastic/wood greenhouse. The farmer built a second one himself.
Of course there are also many failures, but students and partners do learn from it. The motivation of students is a combination of adventure (of course), enjoying the opportunity to put their knowledge to use, commitment to the cause of poor people, and finding sustainable entrepreneurship solutions. Nobody can control the spirit. But in many groups this experience evokes the deeper commitments of students and by their spirited efforts they also had an effect, while the experience for themselves is impressive and sometimes even a life-changing event. Many of them return to their studies with a new feeling of motivation: they now know what for they are doing it. They grow. Both for them and for their counterparts it is a form of capacity training also.
Three months is too short. Only 60 students per year is too little. Professional supervision is required to ensure that students work on a responsible and meaningful assignment that makes a difference. But I am quite convinced that higher education, no any form of education, should develop this approach to learning more intensely and extensively, and make it part of the curriculum of young people. I am doing this together with colleagues for a period of 12 years now.
Otto, you write: "Here I need to get Van Eijk and Groen out of their theoretical considerations".
Yes, my considerations may be theoretical but with very practical implications.
And you write: "If a startup enterprise establishes a strong we-mentality in order to conquer the market, the values of collectivism and of a fighting mentality and risk-taking and winning may find precisely the right and beneficial outlet they need".
And subsequently become the big, dominant new Google's and Facebooks?
The language you use (conquer, fighting, winning) might point to the now dominant neoliberal system, only interested in money and power?
You write: "This is not a theoretical discussion. We need teams from Europe and Africa, consisting of young people ....".
Well, in my view, establishing teams of young people for sure is beneficial for their personal development, but runs the risk of overlooking the larger political-economic issues at hand, such as the dominance of the neoliberal system. From that point of view, your position might be labeled 'theoretical'.
I want to thank Groen and Van Eijk for their comments, and also for the literature references.
Of primary importance is the challenge of the Entrepreneurial Tribe. Other comments can come later.
The old tribes were more entrepreneurial than what we now call tribes in Africa and in many other parts of the world. The old tribes explored the planet before Columbus did. With rafts they went to Australia or Greenland. They also tried many different social orders and they were always on the move. Yes, they were traditional and collectivistic in the sense that the ancestors ruled over the living. But they were also future oriented due to the challenges of each different region they entered. In that sense they were not only collectivistic (everybody the same mindset), but they also showed good teamwork (cooperating from different perspectives and full of tensions). Entrepreneurship requires the courage and mutual confidence to enter upon an unknown future. It is always risky.
The label “entrepreneurial tribe” is not only a nice metaphor to describe the spirit of many innovative startups all over the world. It is also a revival of the same mentality in a modern context. Uprooted young people who do not find orientation from their parents find in such and similar groups their first orientation in society and a sense of belongingness. In the great society we created increasingly machine bureaucracies become more dominant. They turn us into cogs in the machine for a daily salary but without promises. Religious life is living by promises. The tribes lived by the promises of the ancestors. Christian life means considering the sacrifice of the suffering servant as a promising road towards the future. Entrepreneurial startups often are in between: they sacrifice a lot of time for their heroes in order to be like them – that’s ancestral religion. They sacrifice a lot of their time and often their income (they could have had a better job) for bringing about a change in society. That’s more close to the suffering servant.
The collectivism of uprooted individuals in search of identity can become dangerous. And of course the political sphere and the economic sphere are imbricated in each other. Here I need to get Van Eijk and Groen out of their theoretical considerations. It may be quite clear that if a political party follows the course of tribal politics at best we end up with populist politics, but often we go in the direction of new forms of fascism: closed we-groups. If a startup enterprise establishes a strong we-mentality in order to conquer the market, the values of collectivism and of a fighting mentality and risk-taking and winning may find precisely the right and beneficial outlet they need.
This is not a theoretical discussion. We need teams from Europe and Africa, consisting of young people who are by a common effort initiated in an emerging new society, who take the needs of society on their shoulders, grow from it, and learn to become more responsible also as individuals.
Otto, thanks a lot for this original and interesting contribution.
You write: “There is a need to improve the image of farming on the continent as a whole so that it doesn’t have a negative association”.
It is true that farming in Africa in general has a negative image. And it will not be easy to change that overnight. After having worked for some 20 years in Eastern and Southern Africa, I wrote a book which focuses on the many dimensions of development, here in North-western Europe as well as in Africa, including the crucial issue of trust that you correctly emphasize. The Dutch extended version of the book is:
Van Eijk T. (2007) Ontwikkeling en arbeidsethos in Sub-Sahara Afrika. Het belang van gedragsverandering en bewustzijnsontwikkeling. Royal Tropical Institute (KIT), KIT Publishers, Amsterdam. ISBN: 978 90 6832 610 9. [out of print, second-hand versions might be available, a pdf file of the book can be downloaded from my website. A shorter English version is available, see below]
Van Eijk T. (2010a). Development and Work Ethic in sub-Saharan Africa. The mismatch between modern development and traditionalistic work ethic. Lulu
You write: The problem lies in “how to get an effective and accountable hierarchical authority above and beyond tribal and clannish loyalties”.
For this topic I would like to refer to chapter 10 of my 2010a book:
10 Work Ethic and the State
10.1 One-party states
10.2 Four long-term features of pre-colonial African societies
10.3 Ownership and bottom-up institutional innovation
10.4 The soft and hard state
And also to:
Van Eijk T. (2010b). Civic Driven Change through Self-Empowerment. Societal Transformation and Consciousness-Based Development. Lulu.
Especially chapter:
2 Three Interdependent Components of Society: State, Market and Civil Society
2.1 Citizens reclaiming states and markets
2.2 The economy of affection
2.3 Weak formal state and ownership
2.4 Spontaneous, bottom-up institutional innovation and self- empowerment
2.5 Redesign of states and markets from within
You write:
“The entrepreneurial tribe is not a traditional tribe, because it is based in economics, and not politics”.
I fully agree with the comment of Diederik van Groen that there is “no way to separate economics from politics, in terms of spheres or otherwise”. In both of my books mentioned above, I present ‘A holistic framework for multi-dimensional development’ which encompasses the following categories of factors: scientific/technological factors, economic factors, political factors, socio-structural factors, cultural and personality factors, and the factor of collective consciousness. These categories are interrelated, but in my view the categories become more encompassing in the sequence presented above and thus carry increasingly more weight.
The concepts of ‘traditional and entrepreneurial tribe’ are related to economic, political, socio-structural, and cultural and personality factors, and the ‘spheres’ or ‘categories’ can be distinguished for analytical purposes, but they cannot be separated in their practical effects on the process of development. In my view the most encompassing category or sphere is the factor of collective consciousness, but unfortunately this factor is hardly ever discussed in the literature on development cooperation. For much more on the concept of collective consciousness and consciousness development, I refer to my books and various articles in the political-philosophical magazine Civis Mundi (see my website for a list of those articles, including various articles on development cooperation).
You write: “The proposal of an entrepreneurial tribe is an attempt to apply traditional African concepts of loyalty and partnership that fuel in-group tribal mentality to the economic sphere, thus decreasing mistrust between groups and increasing opportunities for more effective and efficient farming”.
In my experience the reach/range of the ‘traditional African concepts of loyalty and partnership’ is often exaggerated, it frequently is limited to the extended family (not to the whole tribe) and with the ongoing urbanization this range is increasingly narrowing. Moreover, loyalty and trust within local farming communities here in The Netherlands were also large when I was a schoolboy in the 1950/60s. I am born and raised on a small-scale farm in The Netherlands and 30 years married to a Tanzanian lady now (a daughter of coffee/banana farmers on the lower slopes of Mount Kilimanjaro). I do not see so much difference in social relationships between countryside life in The Netherlands in the 1950s and today’s rural Africa. Will Africa follow a different path of modernization?
Trust in the economic (agricultural) sphere is absolutely important, but how to maintain and/or enhance it?
You say:
“Africa has too many ‘we groups’ which do not trust each other at all, but in the West, we don’t have any group at all anymore.”
As Jur Schuurman correctly wrote: “the existence of a 'we' by definition means that there is a 'they'.” This refers to the paradoxical in- and out-group issue. In an article about neoliberalism and the role of religion in development cooperation, I say that “Solidarity with one’s own group often implies discrimination of non-group members” (section 14: Believing and belonging: in: Van Eijk T. (2010). Neoliberalisme en de rol van religie in ontwikkelingssamenwerking Civis Mundi digitaal # 2, december 2010.
You write:
“Strong “entrepreneurial tribes” are required to navigate an environment of adverse institutional conditions”.
Yes, strong ‘entrepreneurial economic tribes (your point of emphasis) are required to navigate adverse institutional conditions, but these adverse institutional conditions are formed by the interdependent state, market and the civil society. Thus, by the political, economic and socio-structural spheres. How does an emphasis on economically-oriented tribes manage these three different, but interlinked, spheres? According to you, entrepreneurial economically-oriented tribes are needed for both de-tribalisation in Africa and re-tribalisation in the West. Since the different spheres cannot be separated, how to do this in practical terms? In my view the most encompassing sphere, the collective consciousness, needs to come into the picture here.
I agree with Jur Schuurman that farmers' cooperatives are very important in the African context. I have been training farmer leaders in cooperative development in various African and Asian countries for Agriterra. Bottom-up-established cooperatives have economic, political and social roles. Cooperatives in my view, above all, need to create strong countervailing power for small-scale farmers. Thus, economic and political roles need to be combined. See also ‘chapter 2.4: Spontaneous, bottom-up institutional innovation and self- empowerment’ in my book on civic driven change.
You write in your answer to Jur:
“Cooperatives … function better in as much as they are small and people know each other. Personalized relationships still are of primary importance in order to establish trust. But the circle is becoming bigger and bigger. But in investing trust people take a risk”.
Yes, trust is and remains crucial. When the concentric circle of relationships grows bigger, trust becomes increasingly difficult to establish and maintain. Also, here the concept of a sphere of collective consciousness might be helpful.
You write:
“Around a Harambee there is no corruption. You just don’t do that in the face of the deceased … a harambee to contribute to the funeral or a wedding”.
Yes, harambees for funerals and weddings are common, but harambees for economic purposes are more difficult to organize. In funerals and weddings sometimes (extraordinarily) large sums of money are spent, which might have been better invested in economic activities (thus, harambees as a cultural component that might hinder economic development).
You write:
“We should have collectivism in the economic sphere in order to avoid having it in the political sphere”.
In this context my comments on the interesting book of Fons van der Velden might be of interest.
Van Eijk T. (2020). Sociale bedrijven: een paradox Commentaar op: Van der Velden F. (ED.) (2018). Towards a fair and just economy. Social business as a transformational approach. LM Publishers, Volendam. Civis Mundi Digitaal #102, september 2020.