When We Say “Entrepreneur,” Who Do We Mean?
A lesson from building Safari Strives in Rwanda: understanding whom a program serves should come before deciding how to support them.
Calling someone an entrepreneur tells us that they run a business. It tells us much less about their circumstances, the risks they can afford, or the opportunities within reach. Yet an entire model of support can be built around that single word.
Consider whom it describes. Someone in a marginalized community may run a business because other income sources are scarce. An established producer may have repeat customers and room to expand, but limited equipment or difficulty reaching larger markets. A venture-backed startup may pursue rapid growth with investors prepared to finance years of development.
All are entrepreneurs. Their needs, resources, and exposure to failure can be profoundly different.
Economist Antoinette Schoar’s distinction between subsistence and transformational entrepreneurship helps explain why livelihood creation and enterprise growth require different approaches (Schoar, 2010). But even among businesses pursuing growth, the conditions for achieving it vary considerably.
This is becoming clearer as Safari Strives builds its program in Rubavu, Rwanda. The program focuses on operating businesses with the potential to expand. Their needs do not necessarily resemble those of a venture-backed technology startup. A producer improving margins and reaching reliable buyers needs support designed around those challenges. Nor does growth potential establish financial security. A promising business may belong to someone with little savings, substantial family obligations, and no cushion if an investment fails.
Low income does not mean low potential. Potential does not mean an ability to absorb unlimited risk.
These differences should shape how support organizations operate. Benchmarking a program serving financially vulnerable entrepreneurs against Y Combinator can import assumptions about financing, growth, and investor returns that do not fit. Even programs supporting ambitious, established businesses need benchmarks suited to their circumstances.
The same scrutiny should apply to participation fees and equity. When an incubator supports people struggling to secure a livelihood, charging for access can deepen the constraint it claims to address. Taking ownership also demands justification. What capital or lasting value is provided? Do the terms serve the entrepreneur’s interests? An organization’s need to sustain itself does not, on its own, justify making financially constrained participants responsible for its survival.
At Safari Strives, these questions reinforce the importance of diagnosis before designing support. Understanding the owner’s circumstances matters alongside understanding the business, its market, and the consequences if things go wrong.
The word “entrepreneur” remains useful. But whenever an organization says it supports entrepreneurs, the next question should be: Which entrepreneurs, facing what conditions, and on whose terms?
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Elie Imani is the founder of Safari Strives, an organization supporting operating businesses in Rubavu, Rwanda
