Every society has its share of the strong and the weak. It is the very definition of society, be it economically, socially or otherwise. The interaction and interrelation of these two groups determine not only the pace but also the place of society in the development chart. The relationship ranges from apathy to collaboration. Likewise, the development pace and place increases in the same direction.An example of apathy is well described in the group of economic theories called dualism. Dualism theories assume a split in economic and social structures of different sectors. Thus, a sector like agriculture will have a traditional and a modern side. The two ‘sub-sectors’, the theories presume, have little, if any interdependence, and develop each according to its own pattern.So, in agriculture, the traditional subsistence sector consists of small-scale agriculture, handicraft and petty trade and has high labour intensity, low capital intensity and little division of labour. This is opposed to the modern agriculture which produces for the world market, and is capital intensive with high division of labour.Dualism characterises many African economies. This is principally due to colonialism and its associated neocolonialist thinking. With the advent of colonialism, new economic models were introduced (read imposed on) to the traditional African societies. The ‘modern’ economies came with totally new systems of production and consumption characterised by division of labour and a cash-based economy.One of the consequences of the colonial system is our ‘modern’ way of life with its straightjacket of ‘outside-in dependency syndrome’. A look at the development agenda of most African countries reveals this interesting-depressing streak (pardon the oxymoron). The main focus is on ‘development coming from without’.Exports of primary goods, foreign investments (so much so that the word ‘investor’ seems almost always proceeded by ‘foreign’) and import of finished goods is the norm. This, naturally, creates an unhealthy balance of payments. The other bit is that the development agenda seems crowded with ‘interventions’ (almost always by Non-Governmental Organisations). These interventions are mostly aimed at ’broken-legged’ situations like poverty reduction, saving the marginalised group without really integrating them. Almost always, these ‘do-gooder approaches are insufficient. This is ‘interesting’ because it is a rather unusual way of reasoning but ‘depressing’ because logic seems to have been thrown out of the window. It is the worst case scenario of a dualistic system.Let’s postulate; first, there is nothing wrong with employing modern economic principles and means of production, in fact, it is the way to go. In our present situation, the firms that apply these are the drivers of the economy. They are the strong. And they must be encouraged in every conceivable way. Then there are the individuals and firms whose ways and means are not so modern. They are no properly organised, are subsistence producers and generally do not have the means nor the knowledge to better their productivity. They are the weak.The growth of entrepreneurship is, naturally, adversely affected by this situation. First, there’s the ‘mentality battle’. In business, the bigger and more organised organisations are admired and everyone wants to be associated with them. The shortest way of achieving this is being employed by the ‘blue chip’ corporate. A university graduate who, say, starts a small business like distributing bread in the neighborhood, is unlikely to  attract admiration as his colleague who goes to work as a bank clerk. Whether or not his business pays better would not be considered. This hurts the growth of entrepreneurial spirit for entrepreneurship is supremely mental.Secondly, the policies. The synergistic and comprehensive approach.