The negative impacts of foreign-owned spaza shops on local economic development can vary depending on the context, but here are some common concerns:

Historically, the negative perception of foreign-owned businesses in many countries has roots in colonialism and economic exploitation. Colonial powers often established extractive economies that prioritized the interests of the colonizers over those of the indigenous population. This legacy has contributed to a deep-seated distrust of foreign investment and a desire to protect local economies from external influence.

In post-colonial contexts, policies aimed at protecting local industries and promoting economic self-sufficiency have sometimes resulted in restrictions on foreign-owned businesses, including spaza shops. However, globalization and trade liberalization have led to increased foreign investment and the proliferation of multinational corporations, challenging traditional notions of economic sovereignty and national identity.

In summary, while foreign-owned spaza shops can bring benefits such as access to goods and services that may not otherwise be available, they also pose challenges to local economic development, including competition with local businesses, capital flight, and social tensions. Balancing the need for economic growth and investment with the protection of local businesses and communities requires careful policy formulation and implementation.

Common negative impacts of foreign-owned spaza shops on local economic development are diverse and have to be contextualised to give them meaning. They, however, may be short-term or long-term, direct or indirect, mild or severe. Not arranged in order of essentiality, they include but are not limited to the following:

1. imminent displacement of the local or indigenous small and medium operators of such shops in remote areas. Such displacement leaves the affected citizens deprived of their income source. Disenfranchised, they are unable to take good care of their families and dependents, save or invest in other income-generating activities. They are unable to educate their children to build their human capacity for future employment and prosperity.

2. The main objective of foreign businessmen and investors is to generate as much profit from their operations as possible and repatriate the earnings to their home countries. That perpetuates capital flight, leaving the host communities deprived of resources for investment in local economy development.

3. Linked to 2 above is the high possibility that foreign operators will not declare all the income they generate and eventually, evade the tax. Tax evasion deprives the host communities of resources for local economic investment, which presents serious ramifications.

4. imposition of foreign goods, which may not necessarily be palatable or more preferred to the local communities. In most cases, the foreign operators tend to import and deal in goods and/or services mostly from their respective countries of origin.

5. killing local industry/production capacity by damping goods subsidised from their country of origin. That inculcates a culture of perpetual importation of the goods and services being traded by the foreigners in the spaza shops.

6. possible clash of social and/or cultural shocks perpetuated by religious, ethnic, tribal or other differences between the foreigners and the indigenous citizens that may lead to irreconcilable enmity.