We’re not competing in a free market. We never were.

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”, “high risk”, or “stable environment” are more than merely descriptive. They are influential. I have felt it first-hand. They affect interest rates, investment flows, policy priorities and public expectations.

For Africa, this has been particularly significant. Narratives about the continent have often been constructed externally, shaping how we are perceived and by extension how we are engaged with economically.

This leads us to a deeper insight that if your narrative is defined elsewhere, then your economic reality is partly shaped elsewhere as well.

Changing infrastructure takes time. Changing perception can be just as difficult. But both are arenas of power.

The return of visible power.

In recent years, the subtlety that once characterised global power dynamics has begun to fade. Competition between major powers, particularly the United States and China, has become more explicit.

This competition is not confined to diplomacy or military positioning. It extends into technology ecosystems, trade networks, financial systems and infrastructure development. For businesses, these dynamics appear as technical decisions like which suppliers to choose, which platforms to adopt, and which markets to prioritise.

But beneath those decisions lies an even deeper layer of strategic alignment. And increasingly, neutrality is becoming more difficult. Not because it is impossible, but because systems themselves are becoming less neutral.

Multipolarity, opportunity with complexity.

The shift toward a more multipolar world is often described as an opportunity for regions like Africa. More global players mean more partnerships, more negotiating leverage and more diversification.

But multipolarity is not inherently empowering. It introduces complexity. More options require more discernment. More relationships require more strategic clarity. More competition creates more subtle forms of influence.

The question is not simply whether the world is becoming more open. It is whether actors understand the new structure well enough to navigate it effectively.

Most businesses still treat geopolitics as a background variable, something to monitor occasionally, but not central to strategy. This is increasingly insufficient, because geopolitical shifts often precede market changes. They are early signals.

Regulatory adjustments, policy shifts and diplomatic tensions often indicate where markets are moving before the movement becomes visible in data.

Which means that businesses that understand power move earlier. The ones that do not, move later and describe the change as unexpected.

Power is an environment.

Consider this: what if the greatest constraint on African businesses is not capital, but limited visibility into the systems that govern capital?

And another: what if “market opportunities” are not found, but structured?

If either of these is even partially true, then strategy cannot be confined to operations and finance. It must include structural awareness.

We often think of power and business as separate domains. Power belongs to politics. Business belongs to markets. But this separation is artificial. Power is not the opposite of business. It is the environment in which your business operates.

It shapes what is possible, what is scalable, and what is sustainable. Understanding power does not make a business political. It makes it aware. And awareness, in a complex system, is a form of advantage.

The global system is becoming less predictable, more fragmented, more competitive, and more dynamic. This increases risk. But it also creates openings, because when systems shift, positions can change.

Africa is not being shaped by these changes. It is part of what is reshaping them. Africa’s demographics, markets, resources, and strategic location give it relevance.

The thing is, relevance alone is not enough. Positioning matters. Leverage matters. Understanding matters. In the end, the difference is not between those who face power and those who do not. It is between those who understand it and those who do not.

Those who understand power do not just respond to the world. They position themselves within it. And in a world defined by structure, that difference is everything.

Thank you for reading. I welcome your reflections, questions, and suggestions for future topics. Subscribe to the Entrepreneur In You newsletter here: https://lnkd.in/d-hgCVPy, follow me on all social platforms at @thisisthemax, or get weekly updates via my official WhatsApp channel: www.bit.ly/whatsappthemax.

Wishing you a purposeful and successful week ahead!

♕ —- ♕ —- ♕ —- ♕ —- ♕

The author, Dr. Maxwell Ampong, serves as the CEO of Maxwell Investments Group. He is also an Honorary Curator at the Ghana National Museum and the Official Business Advisor with Ghana’s largest agricultural trade union under Ghana’s Trade Union Congress (TUC). Founder of WellMax Inclusive Insurance and WellMax Micro-Credit Enterprise, Dr. Ampong writes on relevant economic topics and provides general perspective pieces. ‘Entrepreneur In You’ operates under the auspices of the Africa School of Entrepreneurship, an initiative of Maxwell Investments Group.

Disclaimer: The views, thoughts, and opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author, Dr. Maxwell Ampong, and do not necessarily reflect the official policy, position, or beliefs of Maxwell Investments Group or any of its affiliates. Any references to policy or regulation reflect the author’s interpretation and are not intended to represent the formal stance of Maxwell Investments Group. This content is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal, financial, or investment advice. Readers should seek independent advice before making any decisions based on this material. Maxwell Investments Group assumes no responsibility or liability for any errors or omissions in the content or for any actions taken based on the information provided.

Post Views: 4