Search results

There is growing scholarly discourse towards COVID-19 pandemic and creative entrepreneurship in the perspectives of Global South. Extant literature lacks sufficient empirical evidence on the subject matter. This paper therefore provides insights into business models and business model shifts in response to the COVID-19 pandemic among creative entrepreneurs in Ghana.

In working towards achieving the purpose of the study, a qualitative design was deployed. Four artistic communities in three regions were understudied. The study conducted working interviews, Focus Group Discussions and field observations on the creative entrepreneurs.

The results showed a unique business model that captured ministries, agencies and departments; traditional authorities, foreigners and the diaspora community as key creative partners. The creative entrepreneurs equally proposed value via quality deliveries, attractive pattern mix, pure handy crafts, mart finishing, imbibing culture into productions and symbolic meanings. Their key activities include cutting and gluing, sewing and coloring, sketching and prototyping, annual Kente festivals, film shooting and editing. The creatives stream revenue through sales, advances, profit margins, contracts, gate proceeds, loans, friends and family support. The results also point at a regime of business model shifts among the creatives, deploying digitalization and diversification in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The research by design is limited to the qualitative tradition; despite knowing well about the quantitative approach that could have provided a wider scope and coverage for effective generalizability. Certainly, it would be of future research interest to design a comparative mix-method study to achieve a wider coverage feat. Indeed, the paper does achieve the goal of providing an original empirical account, hence making a valid contribution to knowledge in the area of study.

The knowledge on demystified business models relative to the Ghanaian creative entrepreneurs has practical implications for practice: first, it generates a ground-up knowledge as to what creative entrepreneurial business models are, why they exist and exactly how to create one in a Global South perspective.

These creative business models and the COVID-19 induced model shifts among the Ghanaian creative entrepreneurs imply continuous creative livelihoods, sustainable business models and assurance for innovation in creative entrepreneurship space.

The study is of high scientific value, creative entrepreneurial essence and public interest to better demystify creative entrepreneurial business models and theoretically framed them. It offers strong empirical evidence on COVID-19 induced business model shifts. These creative business models and the COVID-19 induced model shifts among the Ghanaian creative entrepreneurs imply continuous creative livelihoods, sustainable business models and assurance for innovation in creative entrepreneurship space.

In the early 1930s, Nicholas Kaldor could be classified as an Austrian economist. The author reconstructs the intertwined paths of Kaldor and Friedrich A. Hayek to disequilibrium economics through the theoretical deficiencies exposed by the Austrian theory of capital and its consequences on equilibrium analysis.

The author approaches the discussion using a theoretical and historical reconstruction based on published and unpublished materials.

The integration of capital theory into a business cycle theory by the Austrians and its shortcomings – e.g. criticized by Piero Sraffa and Gunnar Myrdal – called attention to the limitation of the theoretical apparatus of equilibrium analysis in dynamic contexts. This was a central element to Kaldor’s emancipation in 1934 and his subsequent conversion to John Maynard Keynes’ The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money (1936). In addition, it was pivotal to Hayek’s reformulation of equilibrium as a social coordination problem in “Economics and Knowledge” (1937). It also had implications for Kaldor’s mature developments, such as the construction of the post-Keynesian models of growth and distribution, the Cambridge capital controversy, and his critique of neoclassical equilibrium economics.

The close encounter between Kaldor and Hayek in the early 1930s, the developments during that decade and its mature consequences are unexplored in the secondary literature. The author attempts to construct a coherent historical narrative that integrates many intertwined elements and personas (e.g. the reception of Knut Wicksell in the English-speaking world; Piero Sraffa’s critique of Hayek; Gunnar Myrdal’s critique of Wicksell, Hayek, and Keynes; the Hayek-Knight-Kaldor debate; the Kaldor-Hayek debate, etc.) that were not connected until now by previous commentators.