Through Entrepreneurship
Through Entrepreneurship is a podcast exploring how entrepreneurship – when supported by the right ecosystems – can drive economic growth, solve complex societal challenges, and foster a more equitable future.
Each episode goes beyond the myth of the lone entrepreneur to uncover the real systems that make innovation possible. From student debt and healthcare barriers to the transformative power of local businesses and public-private partnerships, the show examines the forces that shape who gets to succeed and who gets left behind.
Grounded in research and stories from entrepreneurs, policymakers, investors, and community leaders, Through Entrepreneurship highlights the power of new and growing businesses as engines of job creation and community resilience.
Every conversation ends with actionable insights for all stakeholders: entrepreneurs, educators, policymakers, investors, and citizens alike – because building a more supportive entrepreneurial environment is a collective endeavor.
Through Entrepreneurship
041: Redesigning the Entrepreneurial Ecosystem
Use Left/Right to seek, Home/End to jump to start or end. Hold shift to jump forward or backward.
In this episode of Through Entrepreneurship, we dismantle the myth of the founder "knowledge gap" and expose the severe structural deficits blocking underserved entrepreneurs. By shifting our focus from fixing the founder to fixing the environment, we uncover the true power of providing resources, access, and slack over mere business education.
Key Concepts & Discussion Points
- Underserved is an environmental condition manufactured by systemic exclusion, not a personality trait or a reflection of a founder's talent.
- Starting a business in the U.S. requires an estimated $30,000, creating an immediate and ruthless financial filter before founders even reach the starting line.
- The "Aha!" Moment: A World Bank study in Nigeria revealed that providing direct functional support—like paying a professional accountant to manage the books—outperformed standard business training at roughly half the cost.
- Despite applying for financing at the exact same rate, only 38% of profitable startups owned by people of color received partial or full loan approval, compared to 84% of profitable white-owned startups.
- The absolute binding constraint for rural founders is a severe lack of digital infrastructure, with over one-third having access to only one terrestrial broadband provider.
- Traditional accelerators often mistakenly focus on pitch-readiness and generic mentorship instead of unlocking actual market access and providing embedded, active support.
Actionable Recommendations
- For Policymakers & Government Leaders:
- Transition to execution-first support models by funding document review clinics and providing on-site legal navigation rather than endless classroom curricula.
- Expand rural and inner-city broadband, treating it as a core entrepreneurship infrastructure issue.
- Connect underserved small businesses directly to anchor institutions to help them navigate the RFP process and secure government contracts.
- For Entrepreneurs & Innovators:
- Prioritize revenue access over seeking out capital, as paying customers stabilize a business infinitely faster and safer than debt.
- Integrate paid professionals like CPAs or lawyers into your formal network, as these provide crucial inherited trust signals to underwriters during the loan process.
- For the Ecosystem (Investors, Educators, Community Leaders):
- Design patient, flexible financial products that explicitly accommodate irregular cash flows, thin credit files, and lack of conventional collateral.
- Partner directly with trusted local community groups to actively broker trust, rather than simply assuming that a technically open and free program is enough.
- Redefine success metrics by rewarding structural outcomes—like a founder successfully reducing household financial stress—rather than counting the number of workshop hours delivered.
The Big Takeaway
To truly promote economic mobility, we must stop blaming the seed and start actively fixing the soil by designing support systems for constraint, not just surplus. Through Entrepreneurship proves that providing genuine access and removing friction changes economic outcomes far more reliably than simply providing information on its own.
You know, when we talk about um planting a seed, there is this very simple, almost universally understood biological expectation.
SPEAKER_02Right.
SPEAKER_00You put that seed in decent soil, you give it some water, you know, make sure it gets adequate sunlight, it grows.
SPEAKER_02Aaron Powell No, it's biology doing exactly what biology is programmed to do.
SPEAKER_00Aaron Powell Exactly. There's a predictable relationship between the inputs and the outputs.
SPEAKER_02Aaron Powell It's supposed to be this clean mathematical formula, right? And uh because that formula is so deeply ingrained in our minds, if that seed doesn't sprout, our immediate instinctual assumption is that something was fundamentally defective about the seed itself.
SPEAKER_00Aaron Powell We assume it was a bad batch. Trevor Burrus, Jr.
SPEAKER_02Right. Or it just lacked the genetic potential to thrive.
SPEAKER_00Aaron Ross Powell Well, I want to challenge that assumption today with a bit of a visualization for you all. Imagine if you took that exact same seed, I mean a perfectly healthy, incredibly viable seed packed with potential, and you planted it in the dead center of a block of solid concrete. Good luck with that. Right. Suddenly those traditional inputs just don't matter. You could dump a gallon of premium water on it every single day. You could uh point high-intensity UV lamps at it 24-7. It is not going to grow.
SPEAKER_01No, of course not.
SPEAKER_00And yet, if we step away from botany and into the world of business, you know, economics development, entrepreneurship, our traditional approach to helping struggling founders has essentially been to stand over that block of concrete with a megaphone and just shout at the seed, demanding it to grow harder. Trevor Burrus, Jr.
SPEAKER_02Yeah, it's wild when you frame it like that. We have literally spent decades treating a lack of business growth as a fundamental deficit in the founder. Yes. We build entire industries around like fixing the entrepreneur rather than looking down, examining the environment, and realizing we have a severe structural deficit in the soil. It is the absolute definition of a systemic mismatch.
SPEAKER_00Welcome everyone to a very special, incredibly vital edition of the Deep Dive. I'm so thrilled you're spending this time with us. Today we are taking on a very specific mission, and we are speaking to you directly on behalf of the team at the nonprofit organization through entrepreneurship.
SPEAKER_01Yes, we are.
SPEAKER_00And the goal of this audio overview is to take a massive body of evidence-based research that our team has aggregated and share it directly with you, our stakeholders, our community partners, policymakers, and really anyone listening who genuinely cares about economic mobility.
SPEAKER_02Aaron Powell Because it's so important to get this right. Trevor Burrus, Jr.
SPEAKER_00It really is. We're going to unpack our deepest learnings about the true power of entrepreneurship and fundamentally redefine what actually bridges the gap for underserved founders.
SPEAKER_02Aaron Powell And to pull this off, we aren't just sharing theories or feel-good anecdotes today. Right. We are looking at a comprehensive global stack of hard data. We are pulling from randomized control trials, intensive research reports, and federal economic reviews spanning the United States, Europe, and several lower income nations.
SPEAKER_00Aaron Powell The real heavy hitters.
SPEAKER_02Exactly. We're digging into raw numbers from institutions like the World Bank, the International Labor Organization, the OECD, which is the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, and the National Bureau of Economic Research.
SPEAKER_00So let me just set the thesis for this entire conversation right at the top. Because there was a glaring aha moment when our team at Through Entrepreneurship started connecting the dots across all these global studies.
SPEAKER_01Oh, absolutely.
SPEAKER_00For decades, traditional incubators, accelerators, business programs, they've treated the word underserved as if it describes a fixed class of people who simply suffer from a knowledge deficit. Trevor Burrus, Jr.
SPEAKER_02Like they just don't know enough.
SPEAKER_00Aaron Powell Exactly. They operate on the assumption that these founders are failing because they just don't know how business works. But this data stack we're sharing completely shatters that narrative.
SPEAKER_02Aaron Powell The evidence categorically proves that underserved is not a personality trait.
SPEAKER_00No.
SPEAKER_02It is not a reflection of a founder's talent or their drive or their intellect. Underserved is an environmental condition.
SPEAKER_00Aaron Powell That is such a crucial distinction.
SPEAKER_02It really is. It's a state of being that is manufactured by institutional design, a lack of historical access, and systemic exclusion. We are treating people who are starved of resources as if they are starved of information.
SPEAKER_00Aaron Ross Powell And that distinction, I mean, it changes everything about how we should be building support systems. So here is the roadmap for our time together today. First, we're going to completely dismantle the myth of the knowledge gap and redefine who these founders actually are. Yep. Second, we're going to explore the seven critical mismatches in our current economic support systems. Basically, why the help we offer usually isn't actually helpful.
SPEAKER_01Right.
SPEAKER_00Third, we will dive into six real-world case studies from around the globe that prove what actually works. And finally, we're going to leave you with an actionable blueprint. But before we can fix the ecosystem, we have to look at the invisible constraints founders carry into the room before they even utter a single word of a business bitch. Trevor Burrus, Jr.
SPEAKER_02Right. Because starting a business is often romanticized as this purely meritocratic journey where a great idea always wins.
SPEAKER_00Aaron Powell The whole pull yourself up by your bootstraps narrative.
SPEAKER_02Trevor Burrus Exactly. But launching a firm requires a tremendous amount of invisible scaffolding. It requires savings you can burn through, collateral you can borrow against, and the ability to survive a sustained period of highly volatile or completely non existent personal income.
SPEAKER_00Aaron Powell Which most people just don't have.
SPEAKER_02They don't. The Urban Institute ran the numbers on this recently, and they found that it takes an estimated $30,000 just to start a new business in the United States.
SPEAKER_00That is a staggering amount of money for the average household.
SPEAKER_01It really is.
SPEAKER_00And that isn't scale-up money. That's just opening the doors, paying the first month's commercial rent, securing the basic licenses, buying initial inventory, and maybe paying an attorney to file your LLC. That $30,000 requirement acts as an immediate ruthless filter, doesn't it?
SPEAKER_02Oh, it instantly prices out a massive swath of low wealth households before they even reach the starting line. But the disparity gets even more severe when you look at the businesses that actually managed to scrape that money together and launch. The JP Morgan Chase Institute conducted this fascinating study looking at small businesses that successfully survived their first four years. So these are the winners.
SPEAKER_00The ones who made it.
SPEAKER_02Right. They looked at the bank accounts of these survivors, and they found that the typical white small business owner operates with about two and a half times the liquid wealth of the typical black small business owner across those critical early years.
SPEAKER_00Aaron Powell Wait, two and a half times. Let's um let's define liquid wealth here for a second. Because we aren't talking about the value of a house or a car that you can't easily spend, right? We are talking about cash on hand.
SPEAKER_02Aaron Powell Exactly. Cash in the bank, easily accessible mutual funds, things you can liquidate in 24 hours.
SPEAKER_00Okay.
SPEAKER_02Having two and a half times less liquid wealth means you have virtually zero shock absorber. So if a delivery van breaks down, the founder with high liquid wealth writes a check to the mechanic, complains about it, and goes back to work.
SPEAKER_00Right. It's just an annoyance.
SPEAKER_02Aaron Powell But for the founder with low liquid wealth, that broken transmission is a fatal business event. They have to put it on a high interest credit card, or they miss a major delivery, lose their best client, and the business collapses.
SPEAKER_00Aaron Powell Because there's no buffer.
SPEAKER_02None. They are operating under a disproportionate, suffocating financial strain, even when their business model is technically sound.
SPEAKER_00Aaron Powell They're essentially walking a tightrope without a net while someone else is walking a solid bridge.
SPEAKER_02Aaron Powell That's a perfect way to put it.
SPEAKER_00And you know, these constraints take wildly different shapes depending on where you look. I want to shift over to rural founders. I would assume the barrier there is mostly about physical distance to customers. Yeah. But our research points to something far more systemic regarding infrastructure. Trevor Burrus, Jr.
SPEAKER_02Yeah, physical logistics are a nightmare, absolutely. Shipping costs eat margins alive. But the absolute binding constraint for rural founders today is digital infrastructure. Trevor Burrus, Jr.
SPEAKER_00Broadband.
SPEAKER_02Exactly. We operate in a digital economy. If you cannot process online payments, upload large bid documents, or maintain a reliable e-commerce storefront, your business effectively does not exist. The Small Business Administration released a broadband brief recently showing that while roughly 84% of small businesses have access to standard terrestrial broadband, meaning, you know, reliable cable or fiber internet buried in the ground, rural firms are living in a different century.
SPEAKER_00So what are the actual numbers for rural access? Because I think people sitting in a city with gigabit Wi-Fi, they really struggle to comprehend this.
SPEAKER_02Well, more than one-third of rural small business establishments have access to only one single terrestrial broadband provider. Trevor Burrus, Jr.
SPEAKER_00Wait, one-third only have one option. Just one. Aaron Powell Meaning they are held hostage. I mean, if that one provider decides to double their rates or if that network goes down for three days during a storm, the business owner has zero alternatives. They just lose three days of revenue.
SPEAKER_02Aaron Powell Exactly. And that's the lucky group. Roughly 17% of rural firms remain entirely unserved by the top three terrestrial options. Wow. They are forced to rely on incredibly spotty, slow, and expensive satellite connections, or even dial-up in some extreme cases. Dial up in this economy.
SPEAKER_00Yeah. Now connect that digital isolation to government revenue. Rural firms make up 20% of all employer firms in the U.S. They represent a fifth of the business base that hires people.
SPEAKER_01Okay.
SPEAKER_00Yet they receive a microscopic 2.5% of federal small business procurement dollars. Trevor Burrus, Jr.
SPEAKER_02That is a staggering disconnect. 20% of the firms, but only 2.5% of the contracts. Yep. And I imagine that's directly tied to the infrastructure. I mean, if a federal agency requires you to navigate a complex online portal and upload a 500-page PDF proposal by a 5 p.m. deadline, and your satellite internet times out because it's cloudy outside, you lose a million-dollar contract. Trevor Burrus, Jr.
SPEAKER_00You're just out.
SPEAKER_02You are structurally locked out of government revenue streams just because of geography. You've hit the nail on the head. And you know, this concept of institutional friction extends deeply into gender dynamics as well.
SPEAKER_00Right. Let's talk about that.
SPEAKER_02The OECD conducted a review across its member countries and found that women are about 75% as likely as men to be starting or managing a new business.
SPEAKER_00So the intent and the activity are very high.
SPEAKER_02Aaron Powell Very high. But when you look at the capital allocation, it falls off a cliff. Women-led businesses receive roughly 2% of total venture capital investment. Aaron Powell.
SPEAKER_00I've seen that figure floating around for years, and it never gets less infuriating. Trevor Burrus, Jr. It's terrible. Aaron Powell But the research from the International Labor Organization, the ILO, points out that the gender gap isn't just about, you know, biased venture capitalists. It is profoundly tied to a completely different currency. Time.
SPEAKER_02Aaron Powell Time is the ultimate hidden constraint. The ILO released estimates showing that a staggering 708 million women worldwide are completely outside the labor force.
SPEAKER_00Aaron Powell Wait, 708 million.
SPEAKER_02708 million. And it's not because they don't want to work, but due to unpaid care responsibilities, raising children, caring for aging parents, managing the household infrastructure.
SPEAKER_00Trevor Burrus That number is so large it almost loses its meaning until you bring it down to the individual level. We are talking about who has the slack required to be an entrepreneur.
SPEAKER_02Trevor Burrus Slack is the perfect economic term for this. It means the free hours, the mental bandwidth, the buffer time required to sit down and write a business plan or network at an industry event. If a local economic development agency creates a fantastic free entrepreneurship program, but they require you to attend a three-hour workshop every Tuesday evening, they have implicitly designed a system that screens out caregivers. Trevor Burrus, Jr.
SPEAKER_00Which is largely women.
SPEAKER_02Exactly. If you are the sole unpaid caregiver for a toddler and the program doesn't offer a childcare stipend, you simply cannot go. And then the system looks at your absence and assumes you lack ambition when in reality you just lack slack.
SPEAKER_00Aaron Powell It's just bad design. Let's pivot to the data regarding minority and immigrant founders. Because there is this persistent underlying assumption in some policy circles that these groups just need more uh entrepreneurial spirit engineered into them.
SPEAKER_02Which is completely false.
SPEAKER_00Right. The National Bureau of Economic Research summaries completely blow that out of the water. Trevor Burrus, Jr.
SPEAKER_02The intent is absolutely there. The NBER data shows that black and Hispanic individuals in the U.S. report entrepreneurial intentions and confidence in their own business ideas at rates that are completely equal to and frequently higher than their white peers.
SPEAKER_00Wow, even higher.
SPEAKER_02Yes. The drive, the ambition, the cultural desire to build something of their own, it is off the charts.
SPEAKER_00But the actual launch rates and the survival rates plummet once the execution phase begins. Right. And it's a similar story when we look at immigrants and displaced people. The OECD notes a massive surge in self-employment among immigrants in the European Union. But this isn't usually the romanticized Silicon Valley version of entrepreneurship where someone drops out of college to build an app.
SPEAKER_02No, not at all. This is necessity entrepreneurship. Many immigrants and refugees turn to self-employment because they are legally, linguistically, or practically blocked from traditional wage employment. Trevor Burrus, Jr.
SPEAKER_00They can't get a regular job.
SPEAKER_02Trevor Burrus, Jr. Exactly. They cannot get hired, so they have to create their own income streams to survive. And the institutional friction they face is monumental.
SPEAKER_00Aaron Powell Walk me through what that friction actually looks like on the ground.
SPEAKER_02Aaron Powell Okay. Imagine trying to secure a commercial lease when you have no credit history in the country. Imagine trying to open a basic business bank account when you don't possess the specific formal ID the bank's compliance software requires.
SPEAKER_00Yeah, the computer just says no.
SPEAKER_02Right. Add-in language barriers, complex local licensing codes that are difficult for native speakers to understand, and outright discrimination.
SPEAKER_00Aaron Powell It's a mountain to climb.
SPEAKER_02It is. If an incubator builds a support program designed for a founder who has a verifiable paper trail, local goodwill, and a cushion of savings, that program is going to fail an immigrant founder completely.
SPEAKER_00Aaron Powell This all brings to mind a very specific analogy. It's like society is hosting a marathon. We look at the typical highly resourced founder. They're wearing custom-fitted running shoes. The track has been cleared for them. And there's a volunteer handing them a cup of water every single mile. Right. Then we look at the underserved runner. We've strapped a backpack full of rocks to them, we've placed them in the middle of active highway traffic, and we are asking them to literally pave the asphalt as they run.
SPEAKER_01Yeah.
SPEAKER_00And the tragic part is our current mainstream solution to helping that second runner. We don't remove the rocks, we don't stop the traffic, we just stand on the sidelines with a megaphone and shout running techniques at them. We yell, lift your knees higher, optimize your breathing. Have you tried wanting it more?
SPEAKER_02That analogy perfectly encapsulates the core finding of our research as structural roadblocks. We are consistently treating systemic structural roadblocks as if they are personal deficits in the founder's ability. We are trying to teach them how to run better when the problem is that they are running through a minefield.
SPEAKER_00Which brings us to the second major section of our deep dive. If we accept that founders are dealing with these massive systemic roadblocks, a total lack of childcare, terrible broadband, zero liquid wealth, and intense bureaucratic friction, why are the most common support systems out there basically just giving them more homework?
SPEAKER_01It's baffling.
SPEAKER_00I mean, I'm talking about the traditional accelerators, the incubators, the endless series of free workshops. Our team identified seven distinct structural mismatches between what founders actually need to survive and what these programs actually provide. So let's break these down.
SPEAKER_02Absolutely. The first critical mismatch is education versus context. We have this habit of taking traditional business school curricula and dropping it into low wealth communities. Right. But the research from the World Bank on entrepreneurs operating in conflict-affected or high poverty areas shows that chronic stress actively changes how the brain processes information.
SPEAKER_00That makes total biological sense. If you are terrified about being evicted next week, your brain isn't in a state to absorb a lecture on five-year macroeconomic forecasting?
SPEAKER_02No, it's not. Chronic stress, debt pressure, poor mental health, they hamper cognitive performance. They actively dampen the benefits of business assistance. Wow. When a founder is under extreme financial duress, their immediate operating state is damage control. They are trying to survive the next 48 hours. Abstract learning transfer requires a foundation of safety.
SPEAKER_01Yeah.
SPEAKER_02Time and stability are operating inputs, just like financial capital. If a providum doesn't stabilize the founder first, the education simply bounces off.
SPEAKER_00That leads perfectly into the second mismatch. Knowledge versus access. This one is incredibly frustrating to watch play out. Knowing how to acquire a customer does not magically conjure a buyer into existence.
SPEAKER_02It really doesn't. You can put a founder through a brilliant 10-week workshop on customer acquisition funnels, digital marketing, and lead generation. They can ace the test.
SPEAKER_01Sure.
SPEAKER_02But that knowledge doesn't create market demand. You can teach a seminar on corporate finance, but that doesn't fix a local bank's deeply biased collateral rules. The Brookings Institution studied the OpenFour Initiative in Western New York, and they found that founders weren't begging for more classes. They were asking for flexible lending, preloan documentation support, and direct introductions to local institutional buyers.
SPEAKER_00They need actual doors opened.
SPEAKER_02Yes. The binding constraint for these founders sits in the transaction path, the actual doing of the business, not the information path. They don't need a map. They need you to unlock the gate.
SPEAKER_00Mismatch number three is one I see constantly. Yeah. Pitching versus building.
SPEAKER_02Oh yeah.
SPEAKER_00Entire programs are structured around creating a highly polished slide deck and achieving what the industry calls investor readiness. It feels like everybody is trying to mimic a Silicon Valley demo day.
SPEAKER_02It is a massive misapplication of a very niche model. The venture capital pitch model was built for high growth tech software. Right. Applying that model to a local logistics company, a neighborhood bakery, or a micro business trying to secure stable household income is absurd. A polished pitch is a very weak proxy for actual business viability in the real economy.
SPEAKER_00But um let me push back on that a little bit, because I've seen the glossy brochures from these accelerators. They list their alumni, they show the millions of dollars raised, and they claim massive success rates. If the pitch model is so broken, how are they producing these numbers?
SPEAKER_02That's a great question. And the National Bureau of Economic Research has a fascinating working paper that addresses exactly this. It comes down to something called founder sorting.
SPEAKER_00Founder sorting, what is that?
SPEAKER_02Think about who applies to a highly competitive accelerator. It's usually the most ambitious, highly driven, and often best resource founders who have the free time to endure a grueling application process.
SPEAKER_01Okay.
SPEAKER_02The NBER data suggests that these founders would likely succeed anyway, whether they attended the program or not. The accelerators just selecting the winners in advance and taking credit for their trajectory.
SPEAKER_00That's wild.
SPEAKER_02Right. In fact, the paper suggests that once you statistically remove that sorting effect, some accelerators might actually generate negative value added relative to a founder just staying home and working on their business.
SPEAKER_00Wait, negative value?
SPEAKER_02Yeah, because they distract the founder with pitch practice when they should be selling products.
SPEAKER_00Aaron Powell Wow. So they are essentially standing at the finish line and handing a medal to the person who is already going to win the race.
SPEAKER_02Aaron Powell Basically. Now, to be fair, the research doesn't say all training is useless. Meta-analyses from the World Bank do show a positive average effect from business training, roughly a five to ten percent bump in profits and sales.
SPEAKER_01Okay.
SPEAKER_02And Urban Institute reviews find positive average effects for incubators. But here is the critical nuance. These programs are incredibly good at solving problems that are legible to funders.
SPEAKER_00Aaron Ross Powell Legible meaning like easy to put on a grant report.
SPEAKER_02Exactly that. A beautiful business plan, a flawless 90-second pitch, a graduation photo showing 100% attendance. These are highly visible, legible metrics that make donors feel great. Right. But they completely fail to solve the messy, invisible problems that actually shape a business's survival. They fix knowledge at the absolute margin, but they don't alter the structural constraints.
SPEAKER_00That brings us to the fourth mismatch: short-term versus execution. This is about the timeline of support. We love cohort-based programs. They run for 12 weeks as a graduation ceremony, everyone claps, and then the support completely vanishes.
SPEAKER_02But the hardest operational friction doesn't happen in week four of a classroom setting. It happens six months later.
SPEAKER_01Right.
SPEAKER_02It hits when the city delays a permit for three months. It hits when a general contractor takes the deposit and disappears. It hits when a massive corporate client decides to pay an invoice in 90 days instead of 30, and the founder can't make payroll.
SPEAKER_00And there's nobody there to help.
SPEAKER_02Exactly. If the program ended two months before that crisis hits, the founder is left completely isolated right when the structural barriers are at their highest.
SPEAKER_00The fifth mismatch really rethinks how we advise people. Yeah. Generic mentorship versus active support. The classic model is, you know, mentor hours. A founder gets 30 minutes on a Zoom call with a retired executive to ask for advice. Advice is great, but is it enough?
SPEAKER_02The Federal Reserve data on startups owned by people of color is incredibly telling on this point. They looked at who gets approved for bank financing.
SPEAKER_01Okay.
SPEAKER_02And they found that firms with paid professionals in their formal network, specifically CPAs, accounts, Accountants or lawyers are significantly more likely to be fully approved for loans.
SPEAKER_00Aaron Powell Makes sense.
SPEAKER_02And they found that firms owned by people of color report having these paid professionals far less often than white-owned firms.
SPEAKER_00Aaron Powell Because it's not just about an accountant giving you advice on tax strategy, right? It's about what that accountant represents to the underwriter at the bank.
SPEAKER_02Aaron Powell Exactly. It is about inherited trust signals. When a bank sees financials prepared by a certified CPA, they perceive less risk. That is why generic mentor hours dramatically underperform compared to active support. Trevor Burrus, Jr.
SPEAKER_00Right. Just talking isn't enough.
SPEAKER_02Aaron Ross Powell If a mentor just tells you to negotiate better, that's passive. Active support is a mentor picking up the phone, calling a supplier they know personally, and co-negotiating the deal on your behalf. It's a mentor actively reviewing your loan file and stamping their credibility onto it. Mentorship without the transfer of actual access and social capital just leaves the founder as a slightly better informed person stuck in the exact same trap.
SPEAKER_00The sixth mismatch is formal inclusion versus trust. This is the classic field of dreams, fallacy like if you build it, they will come. A city will open a beautiful new small business clinic in an underserved neighborhood and then act shocked when marginalized groups don't walk through the doors.
SPEAKER_02Right, because you cannot assume that just because a program is technically open and free, eligible entrepreneurs will utilize it. Institutional distrust is deeply rooted in these communities, and for very valid historical reasons.
SPEAKER_00Yeah, I mean, we're talking about generations of exclusionary redlining.
SPEAKER_02Predatory lending practices that stripped wealth, and for immigrant communities, a very real fear of immigration enforcement. Right. To them, a government-sponsored business clinic isn't a resource, it's a trap. Trust cannot be assumed. It has to be actively brokered through community partners they already believe in.
SPEAKER_00And the final mismatch, number seven.
SPEAKER_02It is a massive misread of the global entrepreneurial landscape. The ILO reports that globally, more than 80% of enterprises operate in the informal economy. Over 80%. For these millions of survival and informal entrepreneurs, aggressive business growth is a secondary luxury. Their primary goal is simply avoiding total economic collapse.
SPEAKER_00Aaron Powell Right, just keeping the lights on.
SPEAKER_02Exactly. Forcing a curriculum built around scaling, aggressive market capture, and formal fundraising onto a founder whose real immediate task is protecting tomorrow's daily sales to ensure their family has food security. It's not just useless, it is profoundly disrespectful to their reality.
SPEAKER_00Aaron Powell You know, everything we've discussed so far sounds incredibly logical in theory. But at Through Entrepreneurship, our mandate is to base our strategies on hard evidence. So let's look at the actual data from the field.
SPEAKER_02Yes, let's do it.
SPEAKER_00Our team has pulled six specific real-world case studies from around the globe that categorically prove why providing access and changing the environment beats pure information every single time.
SPEAKER_02Let's start with a World Bank randomized trial in Ethiopia. This study is the perfect illustration of the limits of traditional training. They studied an intensive business training program aimed at women entrepreneurs across five different regions. They tracked them for three years. And on the surface, the training worked. It improved profits and sales.
SPEAKER_00But I know there is a massive caveat hidden in that data. Who exactly was benefiting?
SPEAKER_02That is the critical question. The program specifically targeted what they called high potential women. It explicitly did not address the full distribution of women-owned microenterprises in those regions.
SPEAKER_00So they cherry-picked the founders who already had a bit of a runway.
SPEAKER_02The intervention was successful, but only inside a pre-selected group of women who already possessed the baseline stability, the resources, and the slack required to convert that new classroom knowledge into physical action.
SPEAKER_00And everyone else.
SPEAKER_02Three years out, the treated businesses were selling more and earning higher profits. Okay. But the researchers looked deeper to find the mechanism. Did these trained founders just steal existing customers away from their untrained neighbors?
SPEAKER_00Aaron Powell That's a huge point. Because if they just cannibalize the local market, the overall wealth of the community didn't increase at all. Trevor Burrus, Jr.
SPEAKER_02Exactly. But they didn't cannibalize the actual market activity, the total sales volume in the entire local market grew. Right. The training helped these founders introduce better customer service practices and entirely new product lines that hadn't existed in that village before. That innovation drew more customers into the physical market from surrounding areas and encouraged existing customers to spend more money overall.
SPEAKER_00So the pie got bigger.
SPEAKER_02Yes. The intervention worked because it successfully changed customer demand. The mechanism of success ran through the market itself, expanding the pie for everyone.
SPEAKER_00I want to move to the third case study, which takes place in Nigeria. For our team at Through Entrepreneurship, this is the absolute aha experiment of the entire data stack. It fundamentally questions whether we should be teaching founders at all.
SPEAKER_02It really does. The World Bank wanted to compare different ways to improve small firm performance in Nigeria, so they set up a fascinating trial. They took one group of founders and gave them traditional business training, teaching them how to do marketing, how to do accounting, how to manage HR.
SPEAKER_00Standard stuff.
SPEAKER_02Right. Then they took another group of founders and tried something radical, insourcing and outsourcing.
SPEAKER_00Meaning instead of teaching the founder how to do the accounting, they just paid a professional accountant to do it for them.
SPEAKER_02Exactly. They gave the firms direct access to functional specialists. A digital marketing agency handled their ads. A professional operations consultant streamlined their supply chain. And the results were staggering.
SPEAKER_01I bet.
SPEAKER_02Insourcing and outsourcing completely outperformed the standard training group in terms of sales and profits over two years.
SPEAKER_00Okay, but I have to imagine that hiring an agency to do the work is wildly more expensive than just putting a founder in a classroom for a week.
SPEAKER_02That's the most incredible part of the study. The outsourcing model achieved these superior results at roughly half the cost of the traditional training program.
SPEAKER_00Half the cost. How is that possible?
SPEAKER_02Because specialists are efficient and founders who are spread too thin are not.
SPEAKER_00Well, that makes sense.
SPEAKER_02Right. When you force a founder to learn digital marketing from scratch, they make expensive rookie mistakes. They spend 20 hours a week struggling with ad software instead of improving their core product. By outsourcing, you remove that cognitive burden.
SPEAKER_00This changes the entire paradigm. We've spent decades trying to force founders to be Swiss Army knives. We tell them you have to be the chief marketer, the head accountant, the lead lawyer, the HR director, and the product visionary all at the exact same time.
SPEAKER_02And it's impossible.
SPEAKER_00But the Nigeria data proves that we shouldn't put the capability inside the founder's head. We should put the capability beside them.
SPEAKER_02Putting the capability beside them is the ultimate form of support. Advice alone asks for too much cognitive switching from someone who is already drowning in constraints. You put the specialist beside them, and the business actually moves forward.
SPEAKER_00Let's bring the focus back to the United States with our fourth case study, looking at startups of color and the massive lending gap. This is based on data from the Federal Reserve regarding the surge in new businesses during and after the pandemic.
SPEAKER_02Yeah. The Fed data is incredibly sobering because it isolates the exact point of failure. They found that black and Hispanic founders applied for loans, lines of credit, and merchant cash advances at the exact same rate as white founders, right around 46 to 47 percent.
SPEAKER_00Okay, so we can completely throw out the argument that there is a lack of demand for credit or a lack of desire to scale. They're walking into the bank at the exact same rate.
SPEAKER_02The intent is identical, but the approval rates were wildly divergent. And the researchers controlled for business quality. Right. Even when you filter the data to look only at profitable firms, completely removing the argument that these were inherently riskier failing businesses, the gap remains massive.
SPEAKER_00Just profitable firms.
SPEAKER_02Yes. Among profitable applicants, only 38% of startups of color received partial or full approval. Compare that to 84% of white-owned startups.
SPEAKER_00Let that sink in. Profitable firms. 38% approval versus 84% approval. Walk me through the underwriter's desk. What is actually happening in that bank branch to cause that disparity?
SPEAKER_02A major factor the Fed identified brings us back to those trust signals we discussed earlier. The lack of paid accountants or similar professionals in their networks. Only 45% of the minority-owned firms had these professionals on retainer, compared to 64% of the white-owned businesses. A financial statement prepared by a known certified CPA is a massive risk mitigator. Right. Exactly. A financial statement prepared by the founder on a basic spreadsheet triggers alarms, even if the math is correct. A founder in this position doesn't need another webinar on financial literacy. They already built a profitable business. Right. They need documentation help and the inherited trust signals that a professional brings into that bank branch.
SPEAKER_00Okay, the fifth case study looks at a program that genuinely tried to fix these issues, the Chicago Neighborhood Opportunity Fund. From everything I've read, this program had incredible intentions. They wanted to channel resources into underserved commercial corridors on the south and west sides.
SPEAKER_02They did everything right at the front door. They explicitly lowered the barriers to entry. They didn't require a formal 50-page business plan. They didn't even require the founder to have site control of the real estate at the point of application. That's great. They didn't want to scare off founders who had great community ideas but weak, formal networks. They even paired the grants with high-touch, hands-on support from an organization called SummerCore, providing what city staff beautifully referred to as family equity.
SPEAKER_00It sounds like the perfect blueprint, but the data tells a much darker story about what happens after the grant is awarded.
SPEAKER_02Sadly, yes. Roughly 35% of the first round projects were expected to fail and not materialize at all.
SPEAKER_00But wait, if they had the grant money and they had the family equity support, what went wrong?
SPEAKER_02Because the grant was only the beginning. The back half of the execution still depended on mainstream legacy systems that are inherently hostile to low wealth individuals.
SPEAKER_00Oh, I see.
SPEAKER_02Founders hit massive downstream traps. They faced six-month delays waiting for standard bank loans to close the gap on construction costs. They ran into decades old zoning or property title issues that required expensive lawyers to navigate.
SPEAKER_00And the contractor.
SPEAKER_02General contractors failed to deliver on time. And crucially, because these founders lacked the liquid wealth we talked about earlier, they had zero reserve capital to absorb those unexpected delays.
SPEAKER_00So they just ran out of time and money.
SPEAKER_02Exactly. The Chicago case proves that radical inclusion at the front door is completely meaningless if the downstream execution pathway is full of fatal expensive traps.
SPEAKER_00Our final piece of hard evidence looks at refugee entrepreneurs in Ethiopia and Georgia, and it deals directly with how we navigate institutional friction.
SPEAKER_02Let's look at the Somali refugees in Ethiopia. Mainstream banking practices were completely failing them. The conventional collateral requirements, like owning property, were legally impossible for refugees to meet. Right, obviously. Furthermore, the standard interest-bearing loans conflicted deeply with local Islamic religious norms.
SPEAKER_00So the traditional system was both legally and culturally inaccessible. How did the ILO solve it?
SPEAKER_02They partnered with Shabel Bank to create a completely new financial product called Aisha. They stopped trying to force the refugees to conform to the bank and instead forced the bank to conform to the refugees.
SPEAKER_00That's amazing. How did it work?
SPEAKER_02They replaced standard property collateral with sharia compliant interest-free loans that were backed by group-based trust mechanisms. They recognized that in these communities, social capital and institutional fit is the collateral. Wow. One returney, a mother of five named Fadumo, used this culturally aligned loan to enlarge her clothing business stock, reporting significantly more customers and better margins.
SPEAKER_00And what about the data from Georgia?
SPEAKER_02The United Nations Development Program, the UNDP, ran a refugee entrepreneurship initiative in Georgia. They didn't just hand out money, they combined grants with business training, coaching, and crucially heavy legal and financial navigation.
SPEAKER_00Aaron Powell Hand holding through the bureaucracy.
SPEAKER_02Exactly. They helped them fill out the forms, navigate the bureaucracy, and secure the permits. The return on investment for the UNDP was staggering. A 2.98 times return on the grant value. Wow. The key was the full support stack. The training was sitting right alongside the money, the legal navigation, and the operational support.
SPEAKER_00When our team at Through Entrepreneurship looks across all six of these cases, from the rural markets of Kenya to the bank branches of the U.S. to the commercial corridors of Chicago, there is a profound, undeniable through line.
SPEAKER_02Aaron Powell There is. The through line is that the underlying mechanism of success is identical regardless of geography. Providing genuine access, changing the environment, and removing friction changes economic outcomes far more reliably than providing information on its own.
SPEAKER_00So knowing what we know now from this mount of research, we have to ask the most important question of this deep dive. How do we, and how do all of you listening right now, as stakeholders, funders, and community leaders, actually redesign the ecosystem? What is the blueprint for evolvement? What actually moves the needle?
SPEAKER_02Based on the data, the blueprint requires a fundamental, uncomfortable shift in how we structure and fund support. We have identified seven pillars for this new ecosystem.
SPEAKER_00Okay, let's go through them.
SPEAKER_02The first pillar is a transition to execution first support. We have to stop making curriculum and classroom time the organizing principle of our programs.
SPEAKER_00So you are saying less time taking notes and more time in the trenches doing the actual work of the business.
SPEAKER_02Education shouldn't disappear entirely, but it can no longer be the core offering. We need to prioritize practical physical movement.
SPEAKER_00Aaron Powell What does that look like?
SPEAKER_02That means funding document review clinics where lawyers actually fix contracts. It means providing on-site translators. It means giving founders childcare stipend so they can actually focus on a meeting.
SPEAKER_01Yes.
SPEAKER_02It means subsidizing their broadband access and directly referring them to trusted accountants. Think about it. If a founder's main bottleneck is their legal immigration status, putting them in a branding workshop is worse than useless until you provide them with legal navigation.
SPEAKER_00The second pillar completely reframes how we think about funding. Revenue access over capital access. We spend an enormous amount of energy talking about how to get underserved founders' loans or VC funding. But what about just helping them get paying customers?
SPEAKER_02Revenue stabilizes a business infinitely faster and much more safely than debt. And there is a massive untapped lever sitting right in front of us. Procurement. State and local government procurement alone exceeds $1 trillion in the United States.
SPEAKER_00$1 trillion of guaranteed purchasing power.
SPEAKER_02And yet, as we saw with the rural data, marginalized businesses get a microscopic fraction of it. Ecosystem programs need to stop teaching abstract marketing theory and start acting as aggressive matchmakers.
SPEAKER_00Connect the docs.
SPEAKER_02Connect these underserved small businesses directly to anchor institutions, the massive hospitals, the universities, the local city governments, help them navigate the RFP process and facilitate those contracts. That is a demand side intervention that fundamentally changes the trajectory of a community.
SPEAKER_00Pillar three is flexible capital. We need to stop offering what I've started calling symbolic capital-like. A $5,000 grant that looks great in a press release, but isn't enough to actually survive a contractor delay.
SPEAKER_02Lowell founders do not just need a standard, rigid bank loan. They need patient capital that is explicitly matched to their specific risk profile and business stage. The ecosystem needs to design financial products that accommodate irregular cash flows, thin credit files, and low collateral, just like the Ayesha product did in Ethiopia. And crucially, pulling from the lessons of the Chicago failure, we need reserve funds built directly into the capital stack to absorb those unexpected downstream shocks.
SPEAKER_00Pillar four is embedded mentorship. We talked about this extensively with the Nigeria study. We have to stop offering detached theoretical advice from a distance.
SPEAKER_02The evidence base strongly supports models that share the execution load. We need programs where mentors aren't just giving opinions on a Zoom call, but are actively reviewing loan files, picking up the phone to confirm buyers, or acting as temporary project manager.
SPEAKER_00Mentors doing the work.
SPEAKER_02Yes. The best support systems operate almost like fractional co-founders, rolling up their sleeves and taking on some of the cognitive burden.
SPEAKER_00Pillar five is treating trust as a productive asset. We often treat trust as this fluffy, peripheral, concept-like something nice to have, but not a core business metric.
SPEAKER_02But the data shows that distrust creates severe latency at every single stage of a business lifecycle. It delays the initial application for support, it stalls the formalization of the business, and it slows down contract signing.
SPEAKER_00That's a huge drag.
SPEAKER_02Programs absolutely must partner with trusted local community groups, churches, neighborhood associations, local leaders, and design culturally aligned products. If you ignore the reality of institutional trauma, you will constantly overestimate the value of the information you're providing because no one will believe you enough to use it.
SPEAKER_00Pillar six is infrastructure. This is about fixing the physical and digital friction that slows everything down.
SPEAKER_02You cannot build a modern business without modern connectivity. Expanding rural and inner city broadband is not just an infrastructure issue, it is a core entrepreneurship issue. But infrastructure also includes providing targeted legal advice to clear zoning hurdles, streamlining city licensing processes so they don't take six months, and even basic logistical support like transport. These infrastructure fixes are the paved roads that actually allow a founder to turn their ambition into concrete action.
SPEAKER_00And the final pillar, pillar seven, might be the hardest one for our stakeholders to implement. Redefining metrics. I want to ask you, the listener, a very direct question right now. Think about the economic development programs in your own city or the initiatives your organization funds. How are they measuring success?
SPEAKER_02That's the great question.
SPEAKER_00Are they asking the easy questions? Did the founder complete the program? Did they show up to all 10 workshops? Is their pitch deck beautifully formatted? Or are they holding themselves accountable to the hard questions? Did the founder successfully move into a durable business function? Did they secure three repeat customers? Did they get a trusted professional accountant into their network? Did the founder's overall household financial stress actually reduce?
SPEAKER_02If a support system continues to reward simple activity like counting the number of workshop hours delivered over real structural outcomes, it will just keep producing highly visible busyness. And that busyness will yield very mixed, very thin long-term results for the community.
SPEAKER_00Looking at all seven of these pillars, it brings us to a profound and frankly very uncomfortable conclusion about the current state of affairs and economic development.
SPEAKER_02It does. When you step back and look at the totality of this global research stack, it becomes undeniably clear that our current entrepreneurship systems often actively reproduce historical advantage, even while they use the marketing language of inclusion.
SPEAKER_00Let that sink in. They aren't sorting for talent or work ethic or viable ideas. They are sorting for access.
SPEAKER_02Aaron Powell Exactly. If you already have liquid wealth in the bank, if you are completely fluent in the dominant bureaucratic business language, if you have spare time, if you have inherited social proof and elite professional networks, the system looks at you, smiles, and deems you ready. We have built a massive global machine designed almost exclusively for the ideal, highly resourced founder, and we are punishing everyone else for not fitting neatly into that mold. We have to fundamentally start designing our systems for constraint.
SPEAKER_00We have covered an incredible amount of ground today. To wrap up the core insights from our team at ADS through entrepreneurship, the data is undeniable. Underserved founders do not need more exposure to business buzzwords.
SPEAKER_01No, don't.
SPEAKER_00They are not simply information poor, and continuing to treat them as such is a massive failure of both imagination and public policy. What they desperately need is slack in their daily lives, genuine access to local markets, inherited credibility to satisfy underwriters, and direct hands-on help moving through their next critical transaction.
SPEAKER_02Whether it is closing massive liquid wealth gaps, fixing rural broadband dead zones, recognizing the crippling unpaid care burdens placed on women, or redesigning financial products to actually fit the reality of immigrant and minority founders, the solution always comes back to changing the environment. We have to stop blaming the seed and start fixing the soil.
SPEAKER_00I want to leave you with one final provocative thought to mull over as you go back to your own communities, your own corporate boards and your own organizations. If our current economic ecosystems are perfectly designed to reward those who already have a surplus of time, a surplus of money, and elite networks. Wait, excuse me. If they reward those with a surplus, how many world-changing ideas, how many community-saving businesses are we actively starving of oxygen right now simply because the founder didn't fit our neat legible checklist?
SPEAKER_01It is a question that demands an answer, and it demands that answer through immediate action.
SPEAKER_00Thank you so much to all of our stakeholders, partners, and listeners for joining us at Through Entrepreneurship on this deep dive. We encourage you to take these insights, share this research widely within your networks, and use it to radically rethink how you build, fund, and support the next generation of founders. Until next time.