Whether or not the nameless narrator at the center of Ayi Kwei Armah's novel qualifies as the "local type" or archetype for the twenty-first century will depend on how you perceive the twenty-first century.

You could argue the man's struggle is archetypal of not just the twenty-first century but all centuries. Throughout history, people have struggled with living an ethical, honest life while negotiating a society that doesn't always reward or promote virtuous behavior. In this sense, you could say the narrator is an archetype for a person in a modern century—any modern century.

Sticking to the twenty-first century, one way you could argue against the narrator serving as an archetype for the twenty-first century is by arguing that most people don't seem to show the same level of reflection and introspection as the narrator. Think about all of the ethical dilemmas a person in a Western, twenty-first-century society faces on a daily basis. You might wonder if the average person is as fraught as the narrator about all of the harm and damage that their choices could cause or are causing. Perhaps you could argue otherwise, but it doesn't seem like the normal twenty-first-century person is particularly overwrought about who's making their clothes or tech devices.

Conversely, you could argue that the narrator is an archetype of the twenty-first-century person since he places so much pressure on himself to act nobly. You could link the narrator to "purity politics" and the twenty-first-century emphasis on individual goodness and decency. Considering the corruption in Ghana, you could argue that it really doesn't matter if the narrator surrenders to bribery. He's just one person.