Posts Page | Capital Newspaper | The Paper That Promotes Free Enterprise

In the bustling Keqiao District of Shaoxing (Zhejiang Province), the sheer scale of global commerce materializes in a dizzying labyrinth of fabric, color, and machinery. This is China Textile City—an industrial cluster officially recognized as the largest textile distribution hub in Asia. Responsible for trading roughly a quarter of the world’s apparel fabrics annually, the mega-cluster serves as the undisputed beating heart of the global garment supply chain. Capital gained access to this sprawling industrial marvel to evaluate firsthand how the modern textile ecosystem operates.

While the market is traditionally renowned for its staggering trade volume, a profound structural evolution is taking place beneath its surface. The era of low-cost, uniform mass production is rapidly yielding to an agile framework driven by intensive seasonal market research, color forecasting, and hyper-rapid trend alignment. To understand this paradigm shift, Capital spoke with one of the 5,000 plus advanced boutique mills in Keqiao, finding a prime example in a prominent manufacturing and design supplier known by its English trade initialization, SSTY.

Companies matching this high-end profile typically anchor their operations in premium showrooms or corporate design spaces within the East Market or Union Market sectors of Keqiao. Unlike the traditional stalls of raw or stock materials, these specific zones are explicitly designated for high-end, fast-fashion, and trend-setting apparel fabrics.

Operating as a high-end Original Design Manufacturer (ODM), SSTY bypasses the conventional model of simply processing mass orders for basic textiles. Instead, the firm channels significant capital into custom sample creation, specializing heavily in high-performance, trend-forward fashion bases. Their production capabilities focus tightly on knitted jerseys, premium spandex blends, high-stretch scubas, and technical jacquards specifically tailored for modern street fashion, casual leisurewear, and athletic apparel. Pushing the boundaries of material science further, their latest addition to their portfolio features an advanced UV-protection fabric designed specifically for the surging casual outdoor apparel market.

SSTY perfectly exemplifies the lean scale and strategic supply chain positioning of a highly specialized, agile boutique design and trading mill. Operating with a core team of around 70 employees, the company maintains a remarkably high-efficiency framework. In Keqiao, these next-generation firms keep their vital R&D, design, quality control (QC), and brand-management teams completely in-house.

Rather than burdening themselves with massive, inflexible infrastructure, they leverage Keqiao’s extensive, hyper-interconnected regional network of specialized local dyeing and weaving facilities, explains SSTY’s founder. This allows them to scale physical production upward or downward almost instantly.

This design-first framework is precisely why a mid-sized team of 70 can successfully anchor the supply chains for China’s largest domestic clothing brands and fast-fashion giants. They act as the agile creative engine that converts global runway trends into shelf-ready fabrics at record speeds.

As developing nations look to scale their own industrial manufacturing footprints, the Keqiao model—and the lively blueprint demonstrated by innovators like SSTY—offers a compelling case study. True supply chain dominance is no longer achieved merely by operating the largest factories, but by commanding the fastest, most intelligent bridge between design inspiration and production reality.

Ethiopia needs a developmental state that delivers

Editorial

admin

June 27, 2026

Ethiopia needs a developmental state that delivers

With Ethiopia having just conducted its election, the country now enters another crucial political moment: translating political legitimacy into tangible results. Elections matter, but what matters even more is whether the new governing order can deliver stability, economic growth and a clearer development direction.

That is why Ethiopia should look closely at governance models that emphasize planning, discipline and long-term execution. The question is not whether the country should copy another nation’s system. It is whether Ethiopia can adopt a more coherent, results-driven approach to development at a time when public expectations are high and economic pressures remain intense.

For too long, many African governments have treated development as a series of disconnected promises rather than a sustained national project. A stronger model would begin with one simple principle: the state must have the capacity to set priorities, coordinate institutions and follow through. Without that, even the best election results produce little change in daily life.

Ethiopia’s recent election gives the country a chance to reset. The government now has the political space to define a clear national agenda, align ministries around shared objectives and commit to measurable outcomes. That means moving beyond short-term politics and toward a development strategy that can survive beyond one electoral cycle.

A useful model would be one rooted in continuity, not improvisation. It would set long-term targets in infrastructure, industry, agriculture, education and technology, then build the administrative discipline needed to achieve them. Development does not happen because leaders announce ambitions; it happens because institutions execute them consistently.

That is especially important for Ethiopia, where the demands are enormous. The country needs jobs for a rapidly growing population, reliable services, stronger transport links, and greater productivity in both urban and rural economies. It also needs a state that can manage reform without constant disruption. The test of leadership after an election is not rhetoric, but delivery.

One lesson from successful developmental states is that governance must be tied to outcomes. Public policy should not be measured only by speeches, political symbolism or elite consensus. It should be measured by whether roads are built, factories operate, farmers earn more, schools function better and young people see real opportunities.

Ethiopia can learn from systems that place emphasis on long-term planning and policy consistency. Such systems are not perfect, and no model can be transplanted wholesale. But the underlying discipline is worth studying. Countries that advance quickly usually do so because their governments remain focused, organized and patient enough to see reforms through.

The post-election period is also the right moment to strengthen national cohesion. Elections often expose divisions, but they also create opportunities for a broader social contract. If the government can frame development as a shared national project, it may be able to reduce political friction and build wider public trust. Citizens are more likely to support reform when they can see a credible path to better livelihoods.

Ethiopia also needs a sharper sense of strategic autonomy. In a world shaped by global competition, the country should engage external partners on the basis of its own priorities, not someone else’s agenda. That means using partnerships to expand infrastructure, technology transfer, investment and skills, while ensuring that national interests remain at the center.

The key point is this: Ethiopia does not need another abstract policy framework. It needs a governing philosophy that combines vision with execution. The election has provided the political mandate. The next step is turning that mandate into a developmental agenda that ordinary people can feel.

That agenda should include stronger institutions, more disciplined budgeting, better project management and a clearer focus on productive sectors. It should also include a renewed commitment to merit, accountability and policy coordination. These are not glamorous reforms, but they are the ones that determine whether a country progresses or stalls.

If Ethiopia’s new leadership is serious about the promise of change, it must treat this moment as more than a political transition. It should be the beginning of a development turn — one that is practical, disciplined and national in scope.

Ethiopia has already spoken through the ballot box. Now it must speak through results.

Building the next generation of climate-conscious innovators

Opinion

admin

June 27, 2026

Building the next generation of climate-conscious innovators

“The future of Africa’s climate is not something we wait for – it is something we build.” In a discussion with Africa Renewal, Fatima Zannah Mustapha describes what drives her to create climate innovations that support the community while helping the environment.

Growing up in Borno State of Nigeria, Fatima Zannah Mustapha, witnessed how climate change impacts further compounded existing vulnerabilities – intensifying food insecurity, economic instability, and displacement. For many community members, especially women and young people, environmental degradation is not a distant crisis but a daily reality.

A defining turning point for her was observing how declining agricultural productivity limited opportunities, and how those most affected by these challenges were excluded from innovative solutions.

“This shaped my commitment to building practical, inclusive, and scalable climate solutions that empower women and young people to adapt and lead in their own communities” she says.

Empowering women and youth in climate and tech

As an award-winning tech innovator, Fatima is passionate about amplifying women’s voices in the tech field and is deeply committed to using technology as a tool for inclusion and transformation. Her passion for tech engagement stems from her experience in training over 500 women in digital skills, where she saw firsthand how access to technology can unlock economic opportunities and confidence. This journey naturally evolved into climate action, as she recognized that equipping women and girls with digital and technical skills enables them to develop and lead innovative climate solutions within their communities.

In 2007, Fatima co-founded the Future Prowess Foundation, an award-winning organization dedicated to empowering vulnerable populations — particularly women, youth, and refugees — through education, technology, and sustainable development. The Foundation’s mission is to bridge inequality gaps by providing access to digital skills, climate education, and economic opportunities, enabling communities to build resilience and sustainable livelihoods. Through the Foundation, Fatima leads an integrated approach to climate action that combines green farming, digital empowerment, and innovative agricultural solutions.

“We train women and youth in climate-smart agriculture, including sustainable farming, tree planting, and environmental stewardship,” Fatima explains, “We’re equipping them with the tools to not only become drivers of climate solutions but also improve agricultural productivity and resilience in their communities.”

One of the foundation’s key innovations is the advancement of plant tissue culture, which allows for the production of high-quality, disease-free planting materials that improve crop yield and resilience. Through this work, women and girls gain access to improved, high-yield planting materials that increase agricultural productivity, strengthen food security, and creates sustainable income streams for their households and communities.

Shifting perceptions on climate solutions

When Africa Renewal asked Fatima about any challenges she’s encountered in her work, she explained that implementing innovative climate solutions in underserved regions is crucial – but it comes with its challenges. Fatima flags how limited technical infrastructure and resources can make it difficult, especially when trying to advance methods such as tissue culture and climate-smart agriculture systems.

She further explains that driving these innovative solutions also requires building trust with partners, continuous training, and demonstrating concrete and effective impacts as many communities heavily rely on traditional farming methods as Fatima explains. Additionally, gender barriers continue to limit women’s access to resources despite their central role in agricultural practices.

Fatima sees potential: “By building strong partnerships and leading community-driven approaches, we continue to overcome these barriers and scale sustainable impact that position climate actions as an opportunity for innovation, leadership, and economic growth”.

She recalls a time when early efforts to introduce modern farming methods, including climate smart agriculture in Borno State, were initially met with some resistance. Fatima explains that establishing climate-smart demonstration farms helped overcome this barrier by allowing residents to observe the techniques firsthand. She says that demonstrating higher yields and engaging local women as trainers and leaders proved pivotal, ultimately driving increased adoption of sustainable practices, improving food production, and strengthening community resilience.

From vulnerability to leadership

“We are not just witnesses to climate change – we are innovators, problem-solvers, and leaders of solutions the world needs,” says Fatima, “Africa has the potential to lead a new model of climate resilience rooted in community, creativity, and sustainability.”

From 2018 to 2025, the Future Prowess Foundation has implemented several impactful community projects, including digital literacy programs, climate-smart agriculture training, and women empowerment initiatives. The Foundation has already seen a positive impact in communities across Maiduguri and other parts of Borno State, including Jere and surrounding rural areas.

Currently active in Northeast Nigeria, particularly in Maiduguri, Fatima continues to provide women and young people with the tools to create positive climate change within their communities and daily interactions. She is leading projects that integrate climate-smart agriculture, digital empowerment, and emerging technologies such as AI to expand sustainable impact. She hopes to scale this approach across Nigeria and Africa, creating a network of youth-led, technology-driven climate solutions.

“If we act with purpose and urgency, we can transform our story from vulnerability to leadership.”

The Political Economy of Deal-Making Made In Donald Trump

Business & Economy

admin

June 27, 2026

The Political Economy of Deal-Making Made In Donald Trump

Few political figures have so successfully transformed business deal-making into a political brand as President Donald Trump. Long before entering politics, Trump cultivated an image as a master negotiator through real estate ventures, media appearances, and particularly through his 1987 published book “The Art of the Deal”. His political career subsequently extended this business-oriented approach into the sphere of governance. Trump’s understanding of politics as a sequence of transactions and bargains has significantly influenced both domestic and international policymaking. From a political economy perspective, Trump’s deal-making illustrates the complex relationship between economic power, political authority, and market institutions in contemporary capitalism.

Political economy scholars argue that economic outcomes are rarely determined solely by market forces; instead, they emerge from interactions among states, businesses, and social actors. Trump’s approach reflects this understanding, albeit in highly personalised form. Rather than viewing institutions as autonomous frameworks governing economic activity, Trump frequently approached politics as a bargaining arena where outcomes depended upon leverage, reputation, and strategic pressure.

Central to Trump’s philosophy is the notion that successful negotiations require asymmetrical power. In “The Art of the Deal”, Trump emphasised the importance of maintaining leverage, projecting strength, and exploiting bargaining advantages. This perspective aligns with realist traditions in political economy, which emphasise power as the fundamental determinant of economic relationships. During his presidency, Trump repeatedly utilised economic instruments including tariffs, sanctions, and trade restrictions not merely for economic objectives but as mechanisms to increase bargaining power.

Perhaps the clearest example was the renegotiation of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Trump criticised NAFTA as detrimental to American workers and threatened withdrawal unless substantial concessions were secured from Canada and Mexico. The resulting United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) reflected Trump’s transactional approach, combining protectionist rhetoric with hard bargaining tactics. Supporters argued that this strategy corrected unfair trade practices and strengthened domestic industries. Critics, however, contended that many changes were incremental and that the confrontational approach generated unnecessary uncertainty in international markets.

Trade policy under Trump also demonstrated how economic nationalism can reshape global political economy. The imposition of tariffs on Chinese imports marked a significant departure from decades of bipartisan support for trade liberalisation. Trump justified these measures by arguing that China had exploited global trade rules at the expense of American manufacturing. The ensuing trade war represented more than an economic dispute; it reflected broader geopolitical competition over technological leadership, industrial capacity, and global influence.

From a political economy perspective, Trump’s trade policies revealed the enduring importance of state power in an era of globalisation. Contrary to arguments suggesting that markets have diminished state authority, Trump demonstrated that governments retain substantial capacity to influence economic outcomes through regulatory and trade policies. Nonetheless, economists have questioned the effectiveness of these measures, noting that tariffs often increased costs for American consumers and businesses while disrupting global supply chains.

Another significant dimension of Trump’s deal-making concerns the relationship between political leadership and corporate interests. Throughout his business and political careers, Trump maintained close connections with business elites, emphasising deregulation, tax reductions, and investment incentives. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 substantially reduced corporate tax rates, reflecting a supply-side economic philosophy that lower taxes stimulate investment and growth. Advocates claimed that these reforms enhanced business competitiveness and encouraged capital formation. However, critics argued that the principal beneficiaries were large corporations and wealthy individuals, thereby exacerbating economic inequality.

The political economy of Trump’s administration also raises important questions regarding the boundaries between public office and private business interests. Scholars have noted that Trump’s extensive business holdings created unprecedented concerns regarding conflicts of interest and the potential commodification of political influence. Political economy literature emphasises that effective market systems depend upon transparent institutions and clear distinctions between public authority and private gain. When these boundaries become blurred, public trust in both markets and democratic institutions may decline.

Furthermore, Trump’s reliance on personalised negotiations often challenged established institutional norms. International agreements were frequently framed not as multilateral commitments but as transactions that could be renegotiated if perceived as unfavourable. This approach was evident in Trump’s withdrawal from several international agreements, including the Paris Climate Agreement and the Trans-Pacific Partnership. While supporters viewed such decisions as assertions of national sovereignty, critics argued that they weakened international cooperation and undermined institutional stability.

The role of media in constructing Trump’s deal-making image also deserves attention. Trump’s political success cannot be separated from his mastery of modern communication technologies and media narratives. Political economy scholars increasingly recognise that information and media constitute significant forms of economic and political power. Through social media platforms, particularly Twitter during his presidency, Trump communicated directly with citizens, investors, and global leaders. Market reactions often followed presidential statements, demonstrating how symbolic power and media visibility can influence economic behaviour.

Importantly, Trump’s deal-making style has broader implications for contemporary capitalism. His presidency reflected wider societal frustrations concerning globalisation, inequality, and declining industrial employment. Many voters perceived traditional political elites as ineffective in protecting national economic interests. Trump’s transactional politics resonated because it promised decisive action and immediate results. However, the long-term sustainability of governance based primarily on personalised bargaining remains contested.

Effective economic governance typically requires stable institutions, predictable rules, and cooperative relationships among diverse actors. Excessive reliance on transactional leadership may produce short-term gains while undermining institutional legitimacy and policy consistency. As noted Economists argued, institutions reduce uncertainty by establishing durable rules that structure economic interactions. Frequent renegotiation and unpredictability may therefore discourage investment and increase economic volatility.

In conclusion, Donald Trump’s approach to deal-making offers valuable insights into the political economy of contemporary capitalism. His emphasis on leverage, bargaining power, and transactional politics underscores the continuing importance of state authority and economic nationalism in global affairs. At the same time, his presidency illustrates the tensions between personalised leadership and institutional governance. While Trump’s methods succeeded in reshaping debates surrounding trade, industrial policy, and economic sovereignty, they also raised significant concerns regarding inequality, institutional stability, and democratic accountability. Ultimately, the political economy of Trump’s deal-making demonstrates that business and politics remain deeply interconnected, with power serving as the central currency in both domains.

To know more ideas on this, JosefStiglitz’s 2020 printed book entitled “People, Power, and Profits: Progressive Capitalism for an Age of Discontent” is a real glee.