I sat across from a first-time founder in Riyadh who had just closed her seed round. She told me she was proud to be part of the engine that would grow the economy. I believed her conviction. I did not believe the myth that every new company produces growth that matters. That is not a criticism of founders. It is a reminder that the relationship between building a company and lifting a country is complicated. You can create a product, hire a team, win customers, and still have little effect on productivity outside your niche. Or you can build something that changes incentives, improves how an industry learns, and raises the baseline for everyone who follows.
Part of the confusion is the word itself. Entrepreneurship is a broad label for the act of starting and growing a business. It stretches from the street vendor who opens a second cart because there are no salaried jobs, to the deep tech team that commercializes a research breakthrough. When people say entrepreneurship drives growth, they often mix these stories into one. Those stories carry very different signals for an economy. If you are building, you owe it to yourself to understand the difference.
The cleanest cut is between necessity and opportunity. Necessity entrepreneurs step in because there is no other income source. Opportunity entrepreneurs step in because they see a gap that a new model or technology can fill. Both deserve respect. Only one reliably compounds productivity at scale. When a market has a surge of necessity entrepreneurship, it can look vibrant from afar. There are more stalls, more logos, more business registrations. Under the surface, it often signals weak job creation and low wage opportunities. That energy can sustain families, which matters. It rarely shifts industry output per worker in a durable way.
Opportunity entrepreneurship shows up differently. You see new methods that rewire cost curves, new logistics that compress time to delivery, new software that lowers error rates or unlocks markets that were invisible to incumbents. The payoff rarely happens evenly across an economy. Some sectors feel a step change. Others barely move. This is why people talk about an apparent paradox. Innovation feels everywhere, yet country-level productivity moves slowly. The truth is not a paradox at all. It is sector concentration. When your product improves the learning rate in a high-multiplier sector, the economy notices. When it improves a task that sits at the edge of value creation, the economy enjoys a convenience and keeps moving.
Founders often ask me how to place themselves on this map. Do not try to label your company as necessity or opportunity in a moral way. Ask a more practical question. If your product vanished tomorrow, would your customers revert to the old way with no penalty beyond annoyance, or would they suffer a measurable loss of output, accuracy, or speed that their own stakeholders would feel. When the answer is the second case, you are in the territory that connects entrepreneurship and economic growth. Your gains can diffuse beyond your own P and L.
Context matters as much as category. In advanced economies that shifted away from heavy manufacturing and into services, waves of new ventures in software, logistics, and specialized services changed how firms bought, learned, and hired. That is why small teams could dent big metrics. In markets that are still building basic industrial capacity and skills, a high share of self-employment can coexist with flat productivity. Italy offers a cautionary example. A large pool of self-employment did not deliver the growth one would expect because much of it stayed in low scale, low spillover activities. Do not copy a country’s entrepreneurial vibe. Copy the part of the playbook that matches your economy’s stage and your sector’s spillover potential.
Social entrepreneurship complicates the picture in a good way, and also in a hard way. Many founders now design for financial return and social outcomes together. Done well, this changes the constraints you are optimizing under and forces better design. Done poorly, the mission becomes a shield that hides weak delivery. Microfinance is a sobering lesson. It was celebrated for unlocking credit for the unbanked. In practice it delivered mixed results, sometimes encouraging debt cycles without the income lift to match. The lesson is not that social ventures do not work. The lesson is that intent cannot replace model quality. If your product claims a social outcome, instrument it like a scientist. Define the counterfactual. Measure what changes at the household or enterprise level after six months and again after eighteen. Treat impact that fades quickly as a sign that the model is still off.
There is another confusion that hurts both founders and policymakers. People draw a hard line between small business owners and entrepreneurs, as if only one group builds new things. Most small businesses carry real operational creativity. Many scale on the back of process improvements and quiet innovation that never makes the news. On the flip side, many startup founders end up as small business owners in the best sense. They find a repeatable service or product and run it with discipline. Do not let the label trap you. What matters is whether your decisions raise the productive frontier of your customers, not whether your pitch looks disruptive.
Inside big companies there is a cousin of entrepreneurship that deserves more attention. Intrapreneurs use a large firm’s resources to test and deploy new ideas. I have seen intrapreneur teams in Singapore retail banks and Saudi industrial groups move the needle faster than venture-backed startups in the same space, simply because they controlled distribution and could standardize a new method across thousands of users in months. If you are an operator inside an incumbent, do not talk yourself out of the game. If you can ship a safer, cheaper, or faster way to do the job and push it through the system, your growth effect can arrive sooner and spread wider.
So how do you build in a way that aligns your company success with real economic value. Start with the job you improve, not the category you occupy. If your product sits in HR tech, your buyer is not HR. Your buyer is the business unit that wins measurable time and reduces rework. Anchor on a metric your customer’s CFO would defend in a budget review. Error rate, throughput per head, days of working capital freed. That is how you connect your revenue story to a productivity story. When you run discovery, ask customers to show you where their work stalls. Watch them use your tool in real time. Record the misclicks and the patches they have invented. Many founders collect praise and miss the moment where the process still breaks. That moment is where growth hides.
Next, choose a market where learning can compound. If your product improves accuracy in radiology, the multiplier sits in the decision flow that follows the scan. If your product improves point of sale conversion in a low margin retail segment, the multiplier may be small unless you can change basket size or inventory turns. This is where sector choice matters. It is also where geography matters. A logistics improvement in a port city that anchors regional trade will ripple more than the same improvement in a small domestic route. That does not mean you should abandon a smaller market. It means you should tell yourself the truth about spillovers and design your growth plan accordingly.
Then face the discipline problem. Economies benefit when firms reallocate resources toward better uses. Your company is part of that process. If your roadmap clings to features that your best customers do not use, you are hoarding resources that could serve a higher value path. Kill features. Rebuild onboarding until a new user reaches value without a demo call. Train your team to say no to custom work that harms product integrity. A product that scales cleanly creates more predictable jobs and more resilient suppliers. It is a better neighbor in the economic system than a product that only survives through heavy services.
Founders also need humility about timing. Many of us misread what a seed round can accomplish. Early capital can hide the fact that your model does not yet produce value that travels beyond your first cohort. You can buy growth for a while. You cannot buy spillovers. If your product is not improving a fundamental job, growth at the company level will not rescue the economy around you. That is not your burden to carry alone. It is still your responsibility to build with clear eyes. Your craft is to raise the speed and precision of a task that matters, inside a system that matters.
There is a policy side to this story, but most of it sits outside a founder’s control. Governments can tilt the playing field toward opportunity entrepreneurship by investing in human capital, infrastructure, and rules that reward productivity rather than protection. They can hurt founders by equating more business registrations with healthier economies and by subsidizing activity that does not compound. As a builder you cannot wait for the perfect environment. You can choose where your company stands in the chain of value creation. You can choose to measure what matters and to publish proof that your customers perform better because of you. That discipline attracts the right capital and the right talent. It also nudges the ecosystem in a better direction.
If you remember one thing, let it be this. The phrase entrepreneurship and economic growth should not be treated like a promise. It is a possibility that depends on what you build, how your improvement spreads, and whether your market is ready to absorb a better way. Build as if the only praise that counts comes from a customer who can do more with the same people and the same hours because you exist. That is how your company becomes more than a logo in a crowded market. That is how your work starts to show up in numbers that matter beyond your own revenue line.
When the founder in Riyadh asked if her startup would help the country grow, I told her the honest version. Your company will help if your customers can prove they now produce more value with less waste. It will help if others can copy the method you created and if your success pressures incumbents to improve. It will help if the people you hire learn faster here than they would have somewhere else, and if they carry that learning forward when they leave. That is the patient, unglamorous path where a single venture can influence the system. It is slower than the myth. It is also real.
WhatsApp
Instagram
Threads
