A fricapitalism, a term coined by the Nigerian banker and economist, Tony O. Elumelu C.O.N., is an economic philosophy that embodies the private sector’s commitment to the economic transformation of Africa through investments that generate both economic prosperity and social wealth. Elumelu argues that “Africa’s renaissance lies in the confluence of the right business and political action.” 1 The concept is fast becoming a buzzword in Africa and expected to gain recognition even beyond the continent. It has continued to attract significant attention in both business and policy circles. For instance, on an invitation to a panel chaired by un Secretary General Ban Ki-moon (9 April 2014), Elumelu shared his views on Africapitalism with the un General Assembly and Economic and Social Council (ecosoc). 2 The World in 2015, a key publication by The Economist, featured a piece on “The Rise of Africapitalism”. 3 The Tony Elumelu Foundation has also established the Africapitalism Institute, 4 a research-based think tank to mainstream the understanding and practice of Africapitalism.
One of the projects funded by the Africapitalism Institute is the Edinburgh Project.
5
The Edinburgh Project, amongst others, aims to rethink capitalism in Africa by focusing on the role of business leaders, investors, and entrepreneurs in Africa’s development. It is a four-country study – Cote d’Ivoire, Kenya, Nigeria, and South Africa – with an international partnership involving nine universities: Pan Atlantic University – Lagos Business School (Nigeria); Strathmore Business School (Kenya); University of Loughborough; University of
In this chapter, 6 we seek to provide insight about this concept that, as explained above, has seen the birth of a dedicated institute and the commencement of a continent-wide research project. We link Africapitalism to the broader literature on business and society, and critically interrogate and explore it as a possible management idea for business in Africa in response to the onslaught of global capitalism. Coincidentally, the literature on the role of business in society often takes context for granted. When it takes context into consideration, it often adopts an (historical) institutional perspective, which tends to focus more on why firms behave the way they do, rather than on how firms ought to behave, especially in weak institutional contexts. This neutrality, arguably, reflects a dominant paradigm within the social sciences, which have had enormous influence on the field of business in society scholarship. Stepping out of this neutrality, we argue that Africapitalism, i.e. the need for the private sector in Africa to commit to the socio-economic development of Africa, is both an imaginative management idea and a creative moral-linguistic artefact that embodies a new space for appropriating and re-moralising capitalism in Africa. We situate Africapitalism in the broader conversation on global capitalism and highlight some of the salient principles that make it simultaneously an aspect of global capitalism but uniquely different in its situated contextualisation. In so doing, we try to reinstate the sense of place and belonging in the economic globalisation discourse as a form of economic patriotism, and we argue that this is the quintessential distinctiveness of Africapitalism in the global, economic world order. We also highlight emerging issues for further research, and seek to ignite a continued discussion on this theme.
Introduction
Africa has a long and chequered history of colonialism, bad governance, and poverty. In addition, the continent suffers from weak institutions and distressed civil societies. Resuscitating Africa from near economic and social collapse has continued to remain a thriving business for multinational institutions, foreign governments, aid agencies, international ngos, and international donors.
While the 1980s and 1990s were generally seen as the “lost decades” for development in most parts of the region, Africa is now supposedly on the rise (see The Economist 2011, 2013; Carmody 2008). This rise is largely driven by natural resources extraction, export of primary commodities, and the recent rediscovery of Africa as the last frontier of capitalism by the global market. This re-discovery and recognition has been intensified in the wake of the global financial crisis. Implicated in this rise are entrepreneurs who push the boundaries and explore new and innovative opportunities in the continent. The emergence of successful African entrepreneurs has also contributed to the new narrative of Africa rising. Recognising the power of the market for development and the key role of entrepreneurs as economic development change agents in unfettered markets, the nouveau economic elites in Africa have sought to engage with the sustainable development of the continent in a number of ways. One such attempt is the emergence of Africapitalism as a possible economic and management idea in Africa and beyond.
Elumelu’s Africapitalism is an idea that emphasises the obligations of the private sector towards the socio-economic development of Africa and assumes the feasibility of such an undertaking. As an economic idea, it will require efficient economic coordination by diverse actors, such as the state, civil society, and markets. In order to do so, it will need to tap into the moral psychology of the actors (moral agents) and hypothesise human behaviours and needs. This may be contrary to the starting point of neoclassical economic thinking of the homo economicus, who is primarily driven by self-interest. Indeed, an Africapitalism perspective that is rooted in the values of Ubuntu
7
sees the purpose of management as neither to benefit one collection of individuals, as the
The significance of Africapitalism stems from both the enormity of the developmental and governance challenges confronting Africa (see Mbaku 2004), and the fact that the continent requires a customised economic philosophy and business model that better allows it to meet her needs. This is particularly the case given what Ekeh (1990) has referred to as the “tyranny of borrowed paradigm,” in which African realities are either ignored in theoretical debates or made to fit into Western constructs. Consequently, while Lutz (2009) notes that theories that were created within and for individualistic culture are often not at home within communal cultures, Blunt and Jones (1997) assert that Western approaches to management and leadership are often incompatible with the cultural context of Africa. Similarly, Zoogah (2008) has argued that there is a need for a contextualised approach to management theory that incorporates the African context, and the lived experience of its people in its theorising and modelling (see also Edoho 2001). In addition, Lutz (2009) suggested that such a theory is needed not only in the interest of moral integrity and social stability, but also in the interest of economic productivity.
After considering a variety of alternatives, Zoogah and Nkomo (2013) see research that is strong in differentiating Africa yet still highly similar to the West, i.e. that advocates for balanced identity as the most optimal space via which African management research can maintain its unique African identity while still contributing to global management theories. They assert that this is consistent with strategic balance theory, which suggests that a balance between differentiation and conformity leads to better outcomes. This is where Africapitalism comes in as a hybrid notion (i.e. a management idea – a “fairly stable bod[y] of knowledge about what managers ought to do” (Kramer, 1975: 47)) that is potentially an alternative to the status quo. Africapitalism seeks to avoid cultural romanticism that seems to see African culture as the panacea to solve African problems and Western universalist discourse that ignores subtle contextual particularities by reasserting the sense of place, culture, and emotion in capitalism. However, if Africapitalism is to be a meaningful idea and not to be conflated with other similar ideas (i.e. a csr-esque phenomenon) and its true transformational potential is to be realised both in terms of management theory and practice in Africa, then there needs to be a clarification of its philosophical foundation and the underpinning associative ideas.
It is against this background that this chapter seeks to propose a series of associated ideas that might underpin the notion of Africapitalism as a basis for the socio-economic governance role of business and a management idea. It considers its implications for business and society relationships in Africa. The chapter starts by exploring the nature of global capitalism before dovetailing to the quintessential characteristics of Africapitalism as both a moral and a linguistic project.
Global Capitalism: Prospects, Problems, and Paradoxes
Capitalism is one of the most creative ingenuities of mankind. Arguably, capitalism as a mode of economic coordination is fundamentally anchored on the principles of freedom (liberty), individuality (self-interest), diligence (thrift and self-discipline), rights (private property), and equity (fairness). Where each of these fundamentals or a combination of them is out of kilter, capitalism limps, wobbles, and could become dangerously wild if unchecked. The recent global financial crisis, which has been described as a crisis of capitalism, is a case in point. The different societal pathologies created by entrepreneurs and enterprises – for example, global warming, labour exploitation, inequality, pollution, and human rights infringements, etc. – are manifestations of unguarded capitalism. Nonetheless, capitalism in its completeness ought to be a benign force for good, driving human innovation for a progressive world.
In other words, capitalism is primarily a moral project, both as a process and as an outcome (Dunning 2003, 2005; Lundan 2011; Judge et al. 2014), underpinned by a “moral or ethical ecology” (Dunning 2005: 138) or what Donaldson and Dunfee (1999) characterise as a set of “hypernorms”. At the heart of capitalism is the moral question of “what is produced, in what ways it is produced, and who benefits from the goods (and bads) created” (Dunning 2005: 136). Reinforcing the moral foundation of capitalism, Novak (1982: 56) argues that “each age of capitalism requires its own specific moral culture which nurtures the virtues and values on which its existence depends.” Unfortunately, “[f]or too long capitalism, its institutions and morality have been kept separate from each other” (Dunning, 2005: 149) and the resultant successes and failures of capitalism have been treated as matters of mere technicalities (Hayek 1979).
Nonetheless, the study of capitalism assumes strong institutional contexts and actors – for example, strong governments, civil society, effective or efficient regulations and governance. However, nation states and governments in Africa are weak. This weakness makes it difficult for the states and governments to play effectively the roles of protecting lives and properties, as well as ensuring social well-being, infrastructure development, and the development of enabling institutions for the production and consumption of goods and services within Africa. In addition, and unfortunately, the benefits of capitalism are unevenly, some may say, unjustly distributed, partly due to structural and power imbalances in the global polity and partly as a result of weak local (national) governance systems. Capitalism requires effective government, market, and civil society, to yield good societal outcomes. Where one or more of these are missing, the tendency of capitalism leading to societal pathologies is magnified. Thus, reflecting on the benevolence and malevolence of capitalism, Dunning writes:If there is anything distinctive about the “European” model of capitalism, it is the insight, congealed in a myriad of economic institutions and regulatory arrangements, that the interest of “all of us” will be served well if the pursuit of the interest of “each of us” is to some extent constrained by categorical status rights.
Offe 2003: 444
I would assert that capitalism, although possibly the best economic system currently known to man to create wealth, is sub-optimal. In its current state, it is perceived to result in, or continue to allow, an unacceptable level of poverty and social injustice, insufficient participation and a lack of democracy. It is also frequently associated with corporate malfeasance, misuse of economic and political power by governments, and a cavalier attitude by supranational entities towards environmental, security and cultural related issues.
Dunning 2005: 138
This laissez-faire approach to capitalism versus the regulated capitalism debate has been particularly insightful, especially as it highlights the strength and limitations of both sides to the debate. However, Crouch (2010) points out that the unintended consequence of this debate has been the tendency to neglect business as a fundamental institution in socio-economic governance. He argues that it is “essential that analysis of policy and politics of development takes full account of giant corporations as a form of governance in its own right.” This is because, in the present context, the corporate hierarchies of big business are a major source of governance that rival both the state and the market. Thus, there is a need for attention to turn to the role of the firm as political actors, rather than simply being an entity to be regulated by public policy (Crouch 2010). It is therefore not surprising that, in the context of Africa, the discourse of Africapitalism has recently emerged as one way of engaging with the potential socio-economic governance role that business can play in Africa’s
Africapitalism as an Imaginative Moral-linguistic Project
Africapitalism is an attempt to re-imagine entrepreneurship and reunite capitalism with its moral roots in Africa. This chapter takes the commitment of Africapitalism seriously and considers the necessary principles or values foundational to such a commitment. It identifies four possible principles: sense of progress; sense of parity; sense of peace; and sense of place and belonging, which are arguably rooted in the Ubuntu worldview. In this regard, Africapitalism implies the restoration of African-ness in capitalism, reflecting the economic and social practices implicit in African culture and tradition. To realise its goals, Africapitalism must bring its moral intuitions and principled commitments into alignment with modern economic practices. Here, the notion of Ubuntu or African traditional humanism comes to mind. In economic terms, it is a kind of humanism that does not proscribe self-enrichment, but requires the affluent to improve their community (Lutz 2009; Littrell et al. 2013). In this kind of voluntary wealth distributivism, one’s economic and social power is measured by his or her economic empowerment of others.
Thus, if self-identity in the traditional Africa is a relational and transactional category, then a person is a creative articulation of his or her individuality within the matrix of the social community. In a fundamental sense, the community shapes identity. As such, an Africapitalism perspective sees the firm not as a mere collection of individuals, but as a community (Karsten and Illa 2005; McFarlin et al. 1999). “In a community the individual does not pursue the common good instead of his or her own good; rather pursues his or her own good through pursuing the common good” (Lutz 2009). This is because the values of Ubuntu are able to hold the paradox of individual and community in dynamic and interdependent tension by proposing the abrogation of the twin dangers of the subjugation of the individual to the collective, and the detached superordinacy of the individual (Littrell et al. 2013). Hence, drawing
Sense of Progress and Prosperity
This sense of progress and prosperity is nowhere more needed than in Africa, a continent riddled with extreme negative human conditions.Prosperity is more than the absence of poverty, pressing though that is. It means addressing sustainable development and careful husbandry of the world’s resources, while recognising the rights of developing countries to break out from poverty. It means addressing population growth which leads to famine, destabilisation and war. It means quality of life achieved through education, employment, social justice and social security …. true world prosperity will remain a distant goal unless we pursue policies based on the concept of global solidarity.
Bruntland 1994: 57
Sense of Parity
The benefits of progress and prosperity need to be equitably shared. It is very easy for the accumulation of wealth to be lopsided. Most liberal economies have also led to high inequality (Piketty 2014). Inequality has become the new scourge and burden of success and the new poverty. Inequality in Africa is not
Sense of Peace and Harmony
Capitalism can be very innovative, and at the heart of contemporary capitalism is the Schumpeterian quest for creative destruction. Framed as such, capitalism presents an arena of continuous struggle and contestations between the incumbents and the emergent; between old and new regimes; and between places and spaces. This quest for creative destrucion is often underpinned by the logic of self-interest (Adam Smith), which creates enormous rewards for firms and entrepreneurs, and has been proven to be one of the best drivers of entrepreneurial activities. Yet, it is riddled with imperfections – e.g. excessive inequality and market failure (Crouch 2011).
The quest for “[…] investments that generate both economic prosperity and social wealth,” which is at the heart of Africapitalism, is a quest for balance, harmony, and peace. It is a recognition of the tendency of liberal market capitalism to lead to some form of socio-environmental imbalance, which is often dangerous to humanity. This sense of balance, which is expressed as the balance between economic prosperity and social wealth, could be further stretched to include the need to create a balance between the impacts of consumption and production on the ecological, environment, society, and economy. In this regard, Africapitalism shares similar values of balance and harmony with the sustainability movement (Schwartz and Carroll 2008), which can be summed up as the quest for peace and security: “[…] a process of achieving human development […] in an inclusive, connected, equitable, prudent, and secure manner” (Gladwin et al. 1995: 878, emphasis in original). Africapitalism is also underpinned by a stakeholder orientation insofar as it not only sees the creation of private wealth in the form of profits for shareholders, but strives to create social wealth for all stakeholders. It is a re-enactment of the modern management philosophy of harmony and balance (Kramer 1975).
Sense of Place and Belonging
The focus on cost and not place renders the global economic order placeless, and this placelessness has implications for managerial framing of costs and opportunities. As such, Africapitalism is underpinned by the value of sense of place and rootedness (Tuan 1977). It strives to restore in managerial decision making the link between place and economics on the one hand, and between place and self-identity on the other hand. Economic transactions are emplaced in place, and place is intrinsically bound with self, for “there is no place without self and no self without place” (Casey 2001: 684). In other words, Africapitalism becomes an expression of topophilia (Tuan 1974) – “the effective bond between people and place” (Duncan and Duncan 2001: 41).Place has dropped out of sight in the “globalization craze” of recent years, and this erasure of place has profound consequences for our understanding of culture, knowledge, nature, and economy. It is perhaps time to reverse some of this asymmetry by focusing anew – and from the perspective afforded by the critiques of place themselves – on the continued vitality of place and place-making for culture, nature, and economy.
Escobar 2001: 141
The sense of place and belonging can also manifest itself as an expression of patriotism, which “[…] attributes an intrinsic moral value to the defence of the homeland, even if it does not specify its boundaries” (Clift and Woll 2012: 314) and “[…] entails a significant degree of loyalty to one’s country and an associated disposition to take pride in it, to be subject to emotions closely connected with one’s perception of its well-being, and to give some degree of preference to its needs and interests over the needs and interests of other countries” (Audi 2009: 367–368). Within the context of Africapitalism, this expression of patriotism could be classified as a form of economic patriotism, which suggests “[…] that economic choices should be linked with concerns for one’s homeland” (Clift and Woll 2012: 308). In this case, the focus of Africapitalism on Africa is not arbitrary since, “[…] economic patriotism, like economic nationalism, needs to be defined by its territorial references and its underlying conception of political economic space, not by its supposed policy content” (Ibid.). And at the firm level, it could lead to corporate patriotism:
As a linguistic project, Africapitalism jolts conventional wisdom and repositions the development of Africa in the world firmly as an indigenous project in which Africans will play significant, active roles. We see this glimmer of audacious hope across the continent, whether engaging with business leaders in Lagos, Nairobi, Accra, or Johannesburg. The message and the sentiments it evokes are unique. The emotive power of Africapitalism is not necessarily a new phenomenon in economic history. Economic patriotism and nationalism played significant roles in the rebuilding of Western Europe after World War ii, for instance. The same could be seen in the contemporary rise of China as an economic world power. This highlights the view that economic development is both a rational and an emotional project. As such, the resurgence of the behavioural perspective of economics and finance at the wake of the recent global financial crisis is not surprising. The behavioural turn emphasises the role of emotions, sentiments, and sometimes crass irrationality on the rational person of neoclassical economics – including entrepreneurs. And herein lies the distinctiveness of Africapitalism as a powerful emotional economic tool for Africa’s sustainable development. Since “To live is to live locally, and to know is first of all to know the places one is in” (Casey 1996: 18; see also Escobar 2001), the emotive force of Africapitalism, which is embedded in the sense of place and belonging, lends it the ability to connect with the African identity in a way that is not easily reflected in the broad view of capitalism.
Emerging Issues and Future Research
It is important to emphasise that this chapter seeks merely to highlight the foundational ideas that might underpin the notion of Africapitalism. It is not an attempt to establish an Africapitalism theory of management. Hence, there are three main emerging issues. First, clarifying these foundational issues stems from the fact that Africapitalism shares the ethos of doing good to do well with other, similar ideas like Corporate Social Responsibility, corporate citizenship (cc), bottom of the pyramid and triple bottom line. Yet, Africapitalism is sufficiently different from these concepts, in the sense that while these concepts
Second, by reasserting the role of place and emotion in capitalism, Africapitalism offers an alternative basis for the socio-economic governance role of business that goes beyond the often limited business case argument that underpins many other concepts in the field of business and society. Crucial here is the fact that Africapitalism is not just an African-only project; rather, it is a mentality that is inclusive of different agents and actors that share the emotional attachment to the place. Thirdly, the discrepancy between traditional African cultures and theories taught to African managers and future managers remains a serious problem (Lutz 2009). Similarly, Zoogah (2008) has also pointed out that it has been suggested that Africans lack the confidence to generate meaningful, significant, and unique management knowledge. Africapitalism offers a potential space to begin to address these challenges.
There is a need, then, to further clarify what Africapitalism might mean as a management idea (Birkinshaw et al. (2008); Kramer 1975) in practice and the need to formulate hypotheses that can be tested using empirical data. This chapter is an attempt to spark a debate in this area. There is a need for other scholars with an interest in Africa to join the debate and subject the concept to more rigorous analyses that might spur further innovation.
Conclusion
Africapitalism is capitalism by Africa-oriented entrepreneurs for Africa. It allows for a space to re-appropriate the discourse of capitalism in a manner that puts Africa, its culture, and people front and centre of any possibility of capitalist development in the region. Articulated as such, it comes across as a force for good. It is a creative and novel way of domesticating and unleashing the power of capitalism in Africa. It is a concept that can easily unleash the emotive imagination of Africans and refocus their minds on what it means to be African in Africa. In this regard, Africapitalism becomes an expression of economic patriotism.
Africapitalism is a creative push back on the disadvantages of globalisation. It is an entrepreneurial quest and mindset that challenges the conventional win-lose mentality of entrepreneurs and businesses in Africa to create shared value (i.e. win-win outcomes) in and for Africa instead. The idea of capturing national governments for personal gains, which seems rather prevalent in the continent, is anachronistic, unfair to African society, and ultimately unsustainable. Economic patriotism, which is at the core of Africapitalism, is unashamedly good for Africa, and should be promoted within and for the continent.
Africapitalism without a strong philosophy behind it runs the risk of being hollow and ungrounded. Entrepreneurs and firms are at the very heart of capitalism. Any change in the way capitalism runs today should involve these actors. For Africapitalism to succeed, it needs to permeate the entrepreneurial mindset and the boardroom. Given its normative base, it also needs supporting governance mechanisms. Africapitalism requires Africa-consciousness and a form of re-imagined Afrocentricism that places the interests of Africa and Africans at the epicentre of business decisions, and that will guide Africa’s renaissance. Afri-consciousness is a socio-mental awareness of Africa, putting Africans before the market. The sudden characterisation of the continent as the last frontier of capitalism bears the hallmarks of the exploitative form of capitalism, which will not be good for the continent. Afri-consciousness helps to neutralise the onslaught of globalisation and redirects the positive energy of capitalism in Africa to meeting the genuine development needs of African people.
However, Africapitalism can only thrive in a politically stable and environmentally sustainable Africa. It should be open to the natural and unnatural contingencies of the modern market and robust enough to carve a separate and distinct niche for itself in the face of globalisation and globalised Western capitalist market structures. Furthermore, Africapitalism can be both secular and non-secular in orientation. It can be informed by the ethos of both indigenous and non-indigenous religions in Africa. That said, African entrepreneurs must work creatively with the different governments to achieve this goal. This is where responsible business-government relations become a critical strategic option for businesses in Africa. Yet, Africapitalism can potentially serve as the common discourse for collective action and a space to redress the imbalance in management research and theory on Africa. This is particularly important given that Zoogah and Nkomo (2013) have indicated how the predominance of Western epistemology in the production of management knowledge about Africa has led to the exclusion of African voices.
Agnew J.A. (1987). Place and Politics: The Geographical Mediation of State and Society. London: Allen and Unwin.
Anyansi-Archibong C. & P.M. Anyansi (2014). “African Entrepreneurs and their Philanthropies: Motivations, Challenges and Impacts”. In: M. Taylor , R.J. Strom & D.O. Renz (eds) Handbook of Research on Entrepreneurs Engagement in Philanthropy Perspectives. Cheltenham and Northampton: Edward Elgar, 267–297.
Audi R. (2009). “Nationalism, Patriotism, and Cosmopolitanism in an Age of Globalization”. The Journal of Ethics, 13: 365–381.
Birkinshaw J. , Hamel G. & M. Mol (2008). “Management Innovation”. Academy of Management Review, 33: 825–845.
Blowfield M. (2005). “Corporate Social Responsibility: Reinventing the Meaning of Development?” Journal of international Affairs, 81(3): 515–524.
Blunt P. & M.L. Jones (1997). “Exploring the Limits of Western Leadership Theory in East Asia and Africa”. Personnel Review, 26(1/2): 6–23.
Brundtland G.H. (1994). “What is World Prosperity?” Business Strategy Review, 5: 57–69.
Carmody P. (2008). “Exploring Africa’s Economic Recovery”. Geography Compass, 2(1): 79–107.
Carney D. & C. Freeland (eds) (2014). “Making Capitalism more Inclusive: Selected Speeches and Essays from Participants at the Conference on Inclusive Capitalism”, 27 May, London.
Casey E. (1993). Getting Back into Place: Toward a Renewed Understanding of the Place-World.Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, (cited in Escobar 2001).
Casey E. (1996). “How to Get from Space to Place in a Fairly Short Stretch of Time. Phenomenological Prolegomena”. In: S. Feld & K. Baso , Senses of Place 27: 14–51. Santa Fe: School of American Research.
Casey E.S. (2001). “Between Geography and Philosophy: What Does it Mean to Be in the Place World?” Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 91(4): 683–693.
Chang H.J. (2001). Breaking the Mould: An Institutionalist Political Economy to Neoliberal Theory of the Market and the Sate, program paper (SPD) No 6. Geneva: UNRISD.
Clift B. & C. Woll . (2012). “Economic Patriotism: Reinventing Control over Open Markets”. Journal of European Public Policy, 19 (3): 307–323.
Crouch C. (2010). “CSR and Changing Modes of Governance: Towards Corporate Noblesse Oblige”. In: P. Utting & J.C. Marques (eds) Corporate Social Responsibility and Regulatory Governance: Towards Inclusive Development, London: Palgrave Macmillan: 26–49.
Crouch C. (2011). The Strange Non-Death of Neoliberalism. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Donaldson T. & T.W. Dunfee (1999). Ties that Bind: A Social Contracts Approach to Business Ethics. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Duncan J. & N. Duncan (2001). “Sense of Place as a Positional Good: Locating Bedford in Place and Time”. In: P.C. Adams , S. Hoelscher & K. Till (eds) Textures of Place: Exploring Humanist Geographies. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press: 41–54.
Dunning J.H. (ed.) (2003). Making Globalization Good. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Dunning J.H. (2005). “Is Global Capitalism Morally Defensible”. Contributions to Political Economy, 24 (1): 135–151.
Dunning J.H. (2008). “Corporate Social Responsibility: An Institutional Perspective”. In: R. Strange & G. Jackson (eds), Corporate Governance and International Business: Strategy, Performance and Institutional Change. Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave-Macmillan, 168–195.
Edoho F.M. (2001). “Management in Africa: The Quest for a Philosophical framework”. In: F.M. Edoho (ed.) Management Challenges for Africa in the Twenty-First Century: Theoretical and Applied Perspectives, Westport, CT: Praeger, 73–90.
Ekeh P. (1990). “Social Anthropology and Two Contrasting Uses of Tribalism in Africa”. Comparative Studies in Society and History, 34(4): 660–700.
Escobar A. (2001). “Culture Sits in Places: Reflections on Globalism and Subaltern Strategies of Localization”. Political Geography, 20: 139–174.
Garforth C. , Philips C. & S. Bhatia-Panthaki (2007). “The Private Sector, Poverty Reduction and International Development”. Journal of International Development, 19: 723–734.
Geelhoed J. , Samhoud S. & I. Smolders . (2014). Creating Lasting Value: How to Lead, Manage and Market your Stakeholder Value.London/Philadelphia/New Delhi: Kogan Page.
Gieryn T. (2000). “A Space for Place in Sociology”. Annual Review of Sociology, 26: 463–496.
Gill S. (2003). Power and Resistance in the New World Order. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Gladwin T. , Kennelly J. & T. Krause (1995). “Shifting Paradigms for Sustainable Development: Implications for Management Theory and Research”. Academy of Management Review, 20(4): 874–907.
Hall P.A. & D. Soskice (eds) (2001). Varieties of Capitalism – The Institutional Foundations of Comparative Advantage. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hayek F. (1979).Law Legislation and Liberty, Vol. 3, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Idemudia U. (2014). “Corporate Social Responsibility and Development in Africa: Issues and Possibilities”.Geography Compass, 8/7: 421–435.
Judge W.Q. , Fainshmidt S. & J.L. Brown III (2014). “Which Model of Capitalism Best Delivers both Wealth and Equality?” Journal of International Business Studies,45: 363–386.
Kang N. & J. Moon (2012). “Institutional Complementarity between Corporate Governance and Corporate Social Responsibility: A Comparative Institutional Analysis of Three Capitalisms”, Socio-Economic Review, 10: 85–108.
Karsten L. & H. Illa (2005). “Ubuntu as Key African Management Concept: Contextual Background and Practical Insights for Knowledge Applications”.Journal of Managerial Psychology, 20(7): 607–620.
Kramer H. (1975). “The Philosophical Foundations of Management Rediscovered”. Management International Review,15(2–3): 47–55.
Leisinger K.M. (2007). “Capitalism with a Human Face: The UN Global Compact”. Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 28: 113–132.
Littrell R.F. , Wu N.H. , Nkomo S. , Wanasika I. , Howell J. & P. Dorfman (2013). “Pan-Sub-Saharan African Managerial Leadership and Values of Ubuntu”. In: T.R. Lituchy , B.J. Punnett & B.B. Puplampu (eds), Management in Africa: Macro and Micro Perspectives, New York: Routledge: 232–248.
Lundan S.M. (2011). “An Institutional Perspective on the Social Responsibility of TNCs”. Transnational Corporations, 20(3): 61–77.
Lutz D.W. (2009). “African Ubuntu Philosophy and Global Management”. Journal of Business Ethics,84: 313–328.
Makhudu N. (1993). “Cultivating a Climate of Co-operation through Ubuntu”. Enterprise 68 (August).
Mbaku J.M. (2004). Institutions and Development in Africa.Trenton and Amara: Africa World Press.
Mbigi L. (2002). “The Spirit of African Leadership: A Comparative African Perspective”.Journal of Convergance, 3(4): 18–23.
Mbigi L. & J. Maree . (1995). Ubuntu, the Spirit of African Transformation Management. Randburg: Knowledge Resources.
McBarnet D. (2007). “Corporate Social Responsibility beyond the Law, through Law, for Law: The New Corporate Accountability”. In: D. McBarnet , A. Voiculescu & T. Campbell (eds), The New Corporate Accountability: Corporate Social Responsibility and the Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
McFarlin D.B. , Coster E.A. & C. Mogale-Pretorius (1999). “South African Management Development in the Twenty-First Century”, Journal of Management Development, 18(1):63–78.
Murton B. (2012). “Being in the Place World: Toward a Maori ‘Geographical Self’”. Journal of Cultural Geography, 29(1): 87–104.
Newell P. (2001). “Managing Multinationals: The Governance of Investment for the Environment”. Journal of International Development, 13(7): 907–919.
Newell P. (2008). “CSR and the Limit of Capital”. Development and Change, 39(6): 1063–1078.
Novak M. (1982). The Spirit of Democratic Capitalism. Lanham, MA/New York: Madison Books.
Offe C. (2003). “The European Model of ‘Social’ Capitalism: Can It Survive European Integration?” The Journal of Political Philosophy: Vol. 11, No. 4, 2003, 437–469.
O’ Laughlin B. (2008). “Governing Capital? Corporate Social Responsibility and the Limits of Regulation”. Development and Change, 39(6): 945–957.
Piketty Th. (2014). Capital in the Twenty-First Century. Cambridge MA/London: Harvard University Press.
Prinsloo E.D. (2000). “The African View of Participatory Business Management”. Journal of Business Ethics,25: 275–286.
Puncheva-Michelotti P. , McColl R. , Vocino A. & M. Michelotti . (2014). “Corporate Patriotism as a Source of Corporate Reputation: A Comparative Multi-Stakeholder Approach”. Journal of Strategic Marketing,22 (6): 471–493.
Richey L.A. & S. Ponte . (2014). “New Actors and Alliances in Development”. Third World Quarterly, 35(1): 1–21.
Schwartz M. & A.B. Carroll . (2008). “Integrating and Unifying Competing and Complimentary Frameworks: The Search for a Common Core in the Business and Society Field”. Business and Society, 47: 148–186.
Smith Anthony D. (1979). Nationalism in the Twentieth Century. Oxford: Martin Robertson.
The Economist. (2011). “The Hopeful Continent: Africa Rising”, http://www.economist.com/node/21541015/print, last accessed 1 December 2014.
The Economist (2013) “The Hopeful Continent: Africa Rising”, http://www.economist.com/node/21572377/print, last accessed 1 December 2014.
Tuan Y.F. (1974). Topophilia: A Study of Environmental Perception, Attitudes, and Values. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Tuan Y.F. (1977). Space and Place: The Perspective of Experience. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
United Nations. (2006) Promotion and Protection of Human Rights: Interim Report of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on Issues of Human Rights and Transnational Corporation and Other Business Enterprise (UN Document No. E/CN.4/2006/97) Commission on Human Rights, 22 February New York: United Nations Economic and Social Council.
Utting P. (2005). “Corporate Responsibility and the Movement of Business”. Development in Practice,15(3/4): 375–388.
Utting P. (2008). “The Struggle for Corporate Accountability”. Development and Change, 39(6): 959–975.
Zoogah D.B. (2008). “African Business Research: A Review of Studies Published in the Journal of African Business and a Framework for Enhancing Future Studies”. Journal of African Business, 9(1): 219–255.
Zoogah D.B. & S. Nkomo . (2013). “Management Research in Africa: Past, Present and Future”. In: T.R. Lituchy , B.J. Punnett & B.B. Puplampu (eds) Management in Africa: Macro and Micro Perspectives, New York: Routledge: 9–31.
http://tonyelumelufoundation.org/africapitalisminstitute/driving-africas-renaissance-africapitalism/.
This chapter is a slightly amended version of a publication in the Africa Journal of Management, Vol. 1 (2015), issue 2. The Open Access published Journal version of this paper can be freely download from: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/23322373.2015.1026229.
Ubuntu is simultaneously the foundation and edifice of African philosophy and its direct relevance to management theory and practice is covered extensively in the literature (see Lutz 2009; Prinsloo 2000; Mbigi and Maree 1995; and Karsten and Illa 2005).
Through which business, especially the big ones, can improve the lot of the poor by better aligning their self-interest with the good of society (O’Laughlin 2008).