Annotated Bibliography

OpennessICTandentrepreneurshipinsub-SaharanAfrica.pdf

Home >Information Systems homework help >Annotated Bibliography

Information Technology & People Openness, ICT and entrepreneurship in sub-Saharan Africa Simplice A. Asongu, Jacinta C. Nwachukwu,

Article information: To cite this document: Simplice A. Asongu, Jacinta C. Nwachukwu, (2018) "Openness, ICT and entrepreneurship in sub-Saharan Africa", Information Technology & People, Vol. 31 Issue: 1, pp.278-303, https:// doi.org/10.1108/ITP-02-2017-0033 Permanent link to this document: https://doi.org/10.1108/ITP-02-2017-0033

Downloaded on: 28 December 2018, At: 19:05 (PT) References: this document contains references to 107 other documents. To copy this document: [email protected] The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 341 times since 2018*

Users who downloaded this article also downloaded: (2018),"Comparative human development thresholds for absolute and relative pro-poor mobile banking in developing countries", Information Technology & People, Vol. 31 Iss 1 pp. 63-83 <a href="https://doi.org/10.1108/ITP-12-2015-0295">https://doi.org/10.1108/ITP-12-2015-0295</a> (2018),"#IUseTwitterBecause: content analytic study of a trending topic in Twitter", Information Technology & People, Vol. 31 Iss 1 pp. 256-277 <a href="https://doi.org/10.1108/ ITP-02-2017-0029">https://doi.org/10.1108/ITP-02-2017-0029</a>

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald- srm:552352 []

For Authors If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.

About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.

Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

D ow

nl oa

de d

by W

al de

n U

ni ve

rs it

y A

t 19

:0 5

28 D

ec em

be r

20 18

( P

T )

https://doi.org/10.1108/ITP-02-2017-0033

Openness, ICT and entrepreneurship in sub-Saharan Africa

Simplice A. Asongu African Governance and Development Institute, Yaoundé, Cameroon and

Development of Finance, Centre Graduate School of Business, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa, and

Jacinta C. Nwachukwu Faculty of Business and Law, School of Economics, Finance and Accounting,

Coventry University, Coventry, UK

Abstract Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to examine how information and communication technology (ICT) influences openness to improve the conditions of doing business in sub-Saharan Africa. Design/methodology/approach – The data were collected for the period 2000-2012. ICT is proxied with internet and mobile phone penetration rates whereas openness is measured in terms of financial and trade globalisation. Ten indicators of doing business are used, namely: cost of business start-up procedures; procedure to enforce a contract; start-up procedures to register a business; time required to build a warehouse; time required to enforce a contract; time required to register a property; time required to start a business; time to export; time to prepare and pay taxes; and time to resolve an insolvency. The empirical evidence is based on generalised method of moments with forward orthogonal deviations. Findings – While the authors find substantial evidence that ICT complements openness to improve conditions for entrepreneurship, the effects are contingent on the dynamics of openness, ICT and entrepreneurship. Theoretical and practical policy implications are discussed. Originality/value – The inquiry is based on two contemporary development concerns: the need for policy to leverage on the ICT penetration potential in the sub-region and the relevance of entrepreneurship in addressing associated issues of population growth such as unemployment. Keywords Entrepreneurship, Africa, Panel data, ICT, Openness, Mobile communications, Information society, Information growth Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction Information and communication technology (ICT) serves to boost, inter alia: economic prosperity (Qureshi, 2013a; Levendis and Lee, 2013); living standards (Chavula, 2013); externalities in welfare (Qureshi, 2013b, c; Carmody, 2013); banking sector progress (Kamel, 2005); life for all (Ponelis and Holmner, 2013a, b; Kivuneki et al., 2011); and sustainable development (Byrne et al., 2011) in developing nations. Whereas ICT has been documented to benefit human and socio-economic developments, little is known about the connections between ICT, openness and doing business outcomes such as entrepreneurship[1].

Examining the importance of ICT in openness for entrepreneurship in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) fundamentally builds on four trends in the literature, notably, the: evolving potential of ICT; relevance of openness in twenty-first century economic prosperity[2]; role of entrepreneurship in addressing employment concerns in the post-2015 development agenda; and gaps in the entrepreneurship literature (Qureshi et al., 2009; Brixiova et al., 2015; Asongu, 2015; Kuada, 2009, 2015; Roztocki and Weistroffer, 2016; Asongu and Le Roux, 2017; Amavilah et al., 2017).Information Technology & People

Vol. 31 No. 1, 2018 pp. 278-303 © Emerald Publishing Limited 0959-3845 DOI 10.1108/ITP-02-2017-0033

Received 4 February 2017 Revised 24 May 2017 Accepted 22 July 2017

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at: www.emeraldinsight.com/0959-3845.htm

JEL Classification — F40, O38, O40, O55, P37 The authors are indebted to the editor and reviewers for constructive comments.

278

ITP 31,1

D ow

nl oa

de d

by W

al de

n U

ni ve

rs it

y A

t 19

:0 5

28 D

ec em

be r

20 18

( P

T )

First, in relation to frontier economies in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and Asia which are witnessing saturation levels in ICT penetration, there is a higher ICT growth potential in African peripheral markets (Penard et al., 2012; Asongu, 2017a). According to Penard et al. (2012), as of 2010, internet and mobile phone penetration rates in the African continent were 9.6 and 41 per cent, respectively. The SSA region has the lowest ICT penetration rate, while at the same time it has the highest ICT growth rate. Whereas ICT penetration is expected to engender development avenues, cautions have been raised in scholarly and policy circles not to conceive ICT as an economic development silver bullet (Mpogole et al., 2008, p. 71).

Second, openness has been established to be unavoidable in twenty-first century development. Accordingly, there is a well-established consensus that integration into the worldwide economy is indispensable for development in the era of globalisation (Oluwatobi et al., 2015; Murphy and Carmody, 2015; Tchamyou, 2017). The strand of studies underlying this consensus maintains that SSA is lagging in the drive towards the knowledge economy (KE) which is vital for contemporary economic prosperity (Anyanwu, 2012; Asongu, 2017b). In principle, whereas North America and Europe have been charting the course of development in the international arena because of their comparatively higher KE drive, nations in Latin America and Asia are catching-up, partly because the Japanese KE course has determined the pattern for the newly industrialised economies of Asia. Consistent with recent African KE literature, compared to other regions of the world, the overall index of KE in Africa has been decreasing since the beginning of the third millennium (Anyanwu, 2012).

Third, the United Nations’ (2009) population prospect has forecasted Africa’s population could double by 2036 and represent approximately a fifth of the population in the world by 2050. A corresponding policy syndrome is the concern over the rising unemployment associated with the burgeoning demographic change (African Economic Research Consortium, 2014). According to recent literature, the growing unemployment (especially among the youth) would be accommodated for the most part by entrepreneurship from the private sector (Brixiova et al., 2015). This is essentially because public investments would be less linked to such population growth and rising unemployment in the future (Asongu, 2013a). Whereas ICT can be leveraged to enhance entrepreneurship in order to address such unemployment challenges, as far as we are aware, the contemporary entrepreneurship literature has failed to connect with the ICT, openness and the doing of business. There is a growing body of literature on the employment of social media to promote entrepreneurship (Jones et al., 2015; McCann and Barlow, 2015; Wang, 2016) and knowledge sharing in entrepreneurial success (Allen et al., 2016).

Fourth, the available entrepreneurship literature for the most part has focused on, among others, the: legal challenges to doing business (Taplin and Snyman, 2004); cost of doing business (Eifert et al., 2008); drivers of entrepreneurship in East Africa (Khavul et al., 2009); intensity by which trade affects business cycle synchronization (Tapsoba, 2010); effect of externalities in labour regulations on the cost of doing business (Paul et al., 2010); connection between financial literacy and youth entrepreneurship (Oseifuah, 2010); long-run poverty-reducing effect of entrepreneurship (Mensah and Benedict, 2010); intensions behind female entrepreneurs (Singh et al., 2011); motivation behind undergraduate students’ ambition to become entrepreneurs (Gerba, 2012; Ita et al., 2014); and role of the KE in doing business (Tchamyou, 2017).

This study merges concerns from the four narratives above by assessing the role of ICT in openness for entrepreneurship in SSA. The corresponding research question that this inquiry intends to address is:

RQ1. How does ICT complement openness to affect entrepreneurship in SSA?

This positioning aims to extend recent theoretical and empirical literature on the benefits of information technology, notably in: improving conditions for human emancipation (Kautz, 2011;

279

Openness, ICT and

entrepreneurship

D ow

nl oa

de d

by W

al de

n U

ni ve

rs it

y A

t 19

:0 5

28 D

ec em

be r

20 18

( P

T )

Venable et al., 2011; Hossain and Quaddus, 2011; Johri and Nair, 2011; Watts and Wyner, 2011; Gripenberg, 2011) and changing society with opportunities for human development (Tatnall, 2015; Kreps and Kimppa, 2015; Lennerfors et al., 2015; Aricat, 2015; Lahtiranta et al., 2015; Patrignani and Whitehouse, 2015).

The rest of the study is structured as follows. Section 2 covers the theoretical underpinnings and related literature on which the study is built. Section 3 discusses the data and explains why the generalised method of moments (GMM) is employed as the estimation technique in the work. The empirical results are presented and discussed in Section 4 with emphasis on practical and theoretical policy implications. The conclusion in Section 5 summarises the findings and suggests future research directions.

2. Theoretical underpinnings and related literature The broad literature on the climate of doing business and the performance of corporations has been documented for centuries (Asongu et al., 2014). To articulate the primary themes, Porter (1990, 1998) employs a number of factors from the underpinnings of Adam Smith, namely: the division of labour, economic specialisation and comparative advantage (Stigler, 1957; Smith, 1937/1776). Motivated by Smith, both regional scientists (e.g. economic geographers) and regional economists (e.g. Paul Krugman) have substantially shown that the efficient allocation of economic resources is determined by both location-specific and basic business costs (Richardson, 1969). Drivers of such costs and corresponding benefits encompass the availability of a plethora of factors, notably: primary production factors (entrepreneurship, capital, labour and land); global and local commodities and money markets; conducive physical and transport infrastructure systems; agglomeration avenues; ICT; social networks; and educational amenities such as universities/colleges/schools and libraries. The underpinnings of Porter’s model have been supported in more contemporary business literature (Neven and Droge, 2001).

In spite of the model by Porter, a general theory on the climate of business is characterised with more complexity when compared to the optimal location theory of a business or firm. It is a well-known fact, businesses are not always established in optimal locations that reflect their higher profits and lowest costs. In SSA, N’da (2012) has investigated the cost of doing business to conclude on nine principal determinants. They include: the ease with which a business is set-up; obtaining of permits for construction; property rights transfer and enforcement; security of loans; investor protection; ease of paying fees and taxes; cross-border trade and other transactions; compliance with contractual obligations; and the ease with which insolvencies are resolved and other conditions for closing down. Eifert et al. (2005) have assembled both macroeconomic and microeconomic evidence on competitiveness in the African manufacturing sectors to conclude that it is fundamentally determined by the climate of business which influences external economies and comparative advantages of the underlying sectors. They recommended reform in business practices/attitudes because the continent is characterised with high costs relative to its productivity and income.

The business environment in SSA has been studied by Spring et al. (2013) who concluded that appealing economic forces and features include: trade, economic prosperity, foreign direct investment and infrastructure. The authors remarked that the environment of business in SSA is challenging, especially in terms of hurdles in starting business, contract enforcement, control of corruption and regulation quality. Gunning and Mengistae (2001) surveyed the microeconomic evidence on manufacturing investment in the continent during the 1990s. They inferred that the low investment rates are fundamentally due to risky political and risky business environments. The assessment by Devarajan et al. (2001) is not in accordance with Gunning and Mengistae (2001) because cross-country and micro data from Tanzania show that investment is not as low in Africa as suggested by the contending authors.

280

ITP 31,1

D ow

nl oa

de d

by W

al de

n U

ni ve

rs it

y A

t 19

:0 5

28 D

ec em

be r

20 18

( P

T )

Fafchamps (2001) has reasoned that external transaction and network costs can potentially influence market participants into engaging in unequal and inefficient long-run associations, while Stan and Garnsey (2006) have acknowledged that knowledge eases entrepreneurship on the one hand and that entrepreneurship further boosts the growth of knowledge on the other. The underlying reverse causality has been confirmed in more contemporary African literature on KE. Accordingly, Tchamyou (2017) has examined the role of KE in doing business whereas Asongu and Tchamyou (2016) have investigated the influence of entrepreneurship in KE. Both studies have confirmed that causality runs both ways, specifically: from KE to entrepreneurship and from entrepreneurship to KE, respectively.

Legal perspective of entrepreneurship changes and challenges in the South is documented by Taplin and Snyman (2004). The cost of doing business in Africa has been investigated by Eifert et al. (2008) to establish that the indicators of doing business underestimate the performance of African enterprises. This is broadly consistent with the conclusions of Paul et al. (2010) which maintain that doing business indicators from the World Bank do not disclose a complete picture of workers’ employment. Entrepreneurship in East Africa is for the most part motivated by family and community relationships (Khavul et al., 2009) and trade influences the synchronisation in business cycles (Tapsoba, 2010).

The intension of undergraduate students to become entrepreneurs in Ethiopia was investigated by Gerba (2012) who has established that it is fundamentally influenced by content of business courses. Ita et al. (2014) assessed the factors that affect entrepreneurial objectives among undergraduate students in Southeast and South Nigeria. They concluded that personal attitude, perceived barrier and behavioural control are the most significant issues. Other established qualitative influences include: push, affective, personal fulfilment and transformational motivates. Singh et al. (2011) examined the determinants of entrepreneurship among women in Nigeria to conclude on the following motivations: deregulated economic and educational environments, family capital and internally oriented social recognition. The connection between entrepreneurship and financial literacy in South Africa was studied by Oseifuah (2010) who found that the latter is a crucial driver of the former. The long-term effects of entrepreneurship training were assessed by Mensah and Benedict (2010). They recognised that the government policy of distributing handouts with the purpose of reducing poverty has short-run effects for the most part, with potential consequences of violent protests and demonstrations, although entrepreneurship training does provide opportunities for owners of established small corporations to mitigate poverty in the longer term. As discussed in the introduction, this inquiry complements the engaged literature by investigating the interconnections between mobile phones, openness and entrepreneurship in SSA.

3. Data and methodology 3.1 Data This study investigates a panel of 49 counties in SSA with data from the World Bank Development Indicators for the period 2000-2012. Whereas the choice of the periodicity is motivated by data availability constraints at the time of writing, the scope of the region is consistent with the motivation discussed in the introductory section. In line with recent entrepreneurship literature (N’da, 2012; Tchamyou, 2017), we use ten indicators of doing business to proxy for entrepreneurship. They comprise: cost of business start-up procedure; procedure to enforce a contract; start-up procedures to register a business; time required to build a warehouse; time required to enforce a contract; time required to register a property; time required to start a business; time to export; time to prepare and pay taxes; and time to resolve an insolvency. A decreasing tendency in these variables implies a positive condition for entrepreneurship.

281

Openness, ICT and

entrepreneurship

D ow

nl oa

de d

by W

al de

n U

ni ve

rs it

y A

t 19

:0 5

28 D

ec em

be r

20 18

( P

T )

In accordance with Penard et al. (2012) cited in the introduction, ICT is measured with internet and mobile phone penetration whereas openness (or globalisation) is approximated by trade (imports plus exports of commodities) and financial (foreign direct investment inflows) openness. The rationale for the selection of the globalisation indicators is evidence in the available literature that financial and trade transactions are intuitively linked with ICT (Asongu, 2014a; Amavilah et al., 2017).

In order to account for omitted variable bias, five control variables are used. They are: the lagged dependent variables, gross domestic product (GDP) growth, population growth, educational quality and foreign aid. After a preliminary investigation, adopting more than five control variables leads to the proliferation of instruments which ultimately biases estimated coefficients. Whereas from intuition the last-four control variables are likely to positively affect the general doing of business environment, their influence on specific entrepreneurship variables is largely contingent on market expansion and dynamism. For example, the relevance of foreign aid is likely to be sensitive to the type of aid and economic sector to which the development assistance is allocated. The perception for these expected signs is consistent with Tchamyou (2017). Education has been documented to affect entrepreneurship by Oseifuah (2010) and Gerba (2012), while GDP growth is naturally expected to be associated with conditions of doing business[3]. Unfortunately, the effect of economic prosperity on the doing of business variables depends on whether GDP growth is skewed towards specific sectors of the economy such as extractive industries. Hence, in the absence of broad-based economic growth, it is likely that less business opportunities are available for the majority of the population. In the same vein, if the growing population depends on imported commodities for the most part, it is likely to bear negatively on the domestic conditions for the doing of business.

The definition of the variables and corresponding sources are provided in Table AI whereas the summary statistics are disclosed in Table AII. The correlation matrix which is used to inform on potential concerns about multicollinearity is provided in Table AIII.

3.2 Methodology 3.2.1 Estimation technique. The inquiry adopts a GMM estimation approach for at least five main reasons. Whereas the first two are standard requirements for the adoption of the approach, the last three are advantages associated with the empirical strategy. First, the estimation approach requires that the doing business variables are persistent. As apparent in Table AIV, the indicators of doing business are persistent because the correlation between level observations and their corresponding lagged values is higher than the rule of thumb threshold of 0.800. Second, the requirement of the number of countries (N ) being higher than the number of years (T ) is met because N (49)WT(13). Third, the estimation technique accounts for endogeneity by controlling for simultaneity and time-invariant omitted variables. Fourth, cross-country differences are not eliminated in the estimation approach. Whereas country-fixed impacts are eliminated in the GMM approach, cross-country variations are automatically considered in the estimations because the technique is by definition consistent to panel data analysis. Fifth, small sample biases in the difference estimator are corrected by the system estimator. It is fundamentally for this fifth reason that Bond et al. (2001, pp. 3-4) have maintained that the system GMM technique (Arellano and Bover, 1995; Blundell and Bond, 1998) is better than the difference GMM approach (Arellano and Bond, 1991).

In this study, we instead employ the Arellano and Bover’s (1995) extension by Roodman (2009a, b) which uses forward orthogonal deviations instead of first differences because it has been renowned to restrict instrument proliferation and control for cross-sectional dependence (Baltagi, 2008; Love and Zicchino, 2006). A two-step specification procedure is

282

ITP 31,1

D ow

nl oa

de d

by W

al de

n U

ni ve

rs it

y A

t 19

:0 5

28 D

ec em

be r

20 18

( P

T )

adopted because it controls for heteroscedasticity. It is important to note that the one-step approach is homoscedasticity consistent.

The following equations in levels (1) and first difference (2) summarise the standard system GMM estimation procedure:

Bi;t ¼ s0 þs1Bi;t�t þs2ICTi;t þs3Opi;t þs4ICTOpi;t þ X4

h¼1 dhWh;i;t�t þZi þxt þei;t (1)

Bi;t�Bi;t�t ¼ s1 Bi;t�t�Bi;t�2t � �

þs2 ICTi;t�ICTi;t�t � �

þs3 Opi;t�Opi;t�t � �

þs3 ICTOpi;t�ICTOpi;t�t � �

þ X4

h¼1 dh Wh;i;t�t�Wh;i;t�2t � �

þ xt�xt�tð Þþei;t�t

(2)

where, Bi,t is a doing business indicator of country i at period t; σ0 is a constant; τ represents the autoregressive order; ICT (mobile phone and internet penetration rates); Op, openness (trade and foreign direct investment); ICTOp is the interaction between ICT and openness; W is the vector of control variables (GDP growth, population growth, educational quality and foreign aid); ηi is the country-specific effect; ξt is the time-specific constant; and εi,t the error term. Given that the estimation strategy involves interactive regressions, we conform to Brambor et al. (2006) in including all constituent interactive variables in the specifications.

The main shortcoming of the GMM technique is that the approach eliminates country-specific impacts which potentially represent the unobserved heterogeneity. Unfortunately, this elimination is necessary to avoid estimation biases. Fortunately however, some levels of the unobserved heterogeneity are also considered by the adopted GMM approach because it controls for time-invariant omitted variables. Another potential drawback is that estimated coefficients are interpreted as short-term impacts because, for the most part, the adoption of GMM complies with data averages. In this study, we are not using data averages.

3.2.2 Identification and exclusion restriction. Consistent with recent literature (Love and Zicchino, 2006; Dewan and Ramaprasad, 2014; Asongu and Nwachukwu, 2016b, c), all explanatory variables are treated as suspected endogenous or predetermined indicators. Hence, the gmmstyle is adopted for them. Furthermore, only years are treated as exogenous and the approach for treating ivstyle (years) is “iv(years, eq[diff])” because it is not apparent for the years to become endogenous in first difference (Roodman, 2009b).

The concern about simultaneity is tackled by using lagged regressors as instruments for the forward-differenced variables. Consequently, fixed impacts that evidently influence the assessed relationships are eliminated with Helmet transformations that are performed in line with Love and Zicchino (2006). Such transformations consist of forward mean differencing of indicators: contrary to subtracting past observations from present ones (Roodman, 2009b, p. 104), the average of future observations is subtracted from the variables. The transformation enables orthogonal or parallel conditions between lagged variables and forward-differenced indicators. Irrespective of lagged numbers, in order to limit data loss, the transformations are computed for all observations, except for the last in each cross-section. “And because lagged observations do not enter the formula, they are valid as instruments” (Roodman, 2009b, p. 104).

With the above in mind, years or time-invariant variables which are hypothesised to exhibit strict exogeneity influence entrepreneurship variables exclusively via endogenous explaining variables. The statistical validity of the exclusion restriction is investigated with

283

Openness, ICT and

entrepreneurship

D ow

nl oa

de d

by W

al de

n U

ni ve

rs it

y A

t 19

:0 5

28 D

ec em

be r

20 18

( P

T )

the difference-in-Hansen Test (DHT) for instrument exogeneity. The null hypothesis of the test should not be rejected for the strictly exogenous instruments (or years) to elucidate the entrepreneurship variables exclusively via the predetermined explanatory variables. The DHT is, hence, employed to investigate whether the time-invariant variables exhibit strict exogeneity by not explaining entrepreneurship beyond the suggested channels (or endogenous explaining variables). Thus, in the section that follows, the reported findings should confirm the validity of the exclusion restriction if the null hypotheses of DHT corresponding to IV (year, eq[diff]) are not rejected.

4. Empirical results 4.1 Presentation of results Tables I-Table IV respectively present the first, second, third and fourth sets of specifications on linkages between ICT, openness and entrepreneurship. Table I is concerned with the: cost of business start-up procedures, procedures to enforce a contract and start-up procedures to register a business. Table II focuses on the: time required to build a warehouse; time required to enforce a contract and time required to register a property. In Table III, emphasis is made on the: time required to start a business, time to export and time to prepare, and time to pay taxes whereas Table IV focuses on the time required to resolve an insolvency. For each doing business indicator, there are four specifications: two pertaining to trade openness and two related to financial openness. For either openness indicators, one specification employs the mobile phone penetration policy variable whereas the second specification employs the internet penetration policy variable.

Four information criteria are used to investigate the validity of the GMM estimations (Asongu and De Moor, 2017, p. 200). First, the null hypothesis of the second-order Arellano and Bond autocorrelation test (AR(2)) which argues for the absence of autocorrelation in the residuals should not be rejected. Second, the Sargan and Hansen over-identification restrictions (OIR) tests should be insignificant because their null hypotheses are the positions that instruments are valid or uncorrelated with the error terms. Accordingly, whereas the Sargan OIR test is not robust but not weakened by instruments, the Hansen OIR is robust but weakened by instruments. In order to restrict identification or limit the proliferation of instruments, we have ensured that instruments are lower than the number of cross-sections in most specifications. Third, the DHT for exogeneity of instruments is also employed to examine the validity of results from the Hansen OIR test. Fourth, we also provide a Fischer test for the joint validity of estimated coefficients.

In order to assess the role of ICT in modulating the effect of openness on entrepreneurship, the net effect is computed. For example, in Table I, in the second to the last column, the net effect from the interaction between mobile phones and financial openness on “start-up procedures to register a business” is −0.009 ((0.0004 × 23.379) +(−0.019)). Where the mean value of mobile phone penetration is 23.379, the unconditional impact of financial openness is −0.019 while the conditional effect from the interaction between financial openness and mobile phones is 0.0004.

The following findings can be established from Tables I-IV. First, net effects on the “cost of business start-up procedure”, “time to export” and “time to resolve an insolvency” from the interaction of ICT with openness are not apparent because at least one estimate required for their computations is not significant. Second, there are positive net effects from the role of the internet on openness (trade and FDI) in the number of procedures required to enforce a contract. Third, the net effect from the interaction between mobile phones and financial openness on the “number start-up procedures to register a business” is negative. Fourth, mobile phone (internet) penetration interacts with financial openness to have positive net effect on the “time required to build a warehouse” (time required to enforce a contract).

284

ITP 31,1

D ow

nl oa

de d

by W

al de

n U

ni ve

rs it

y A

t 19

:0 5

28 D

ec em

be r

20 18

( P

T )

D ep en de nt

va ri ab le s: co st

of bu

si ne ss

st ar t- up

pr oc ed ur e, pr oc ed ur e to

en fo rc e a co nt ra ct

an d st ar t- up

pr oc ed ur e to

re gi st er

a bu

si ne ss

C os t of

bu si ne ss

st ar t- up

pr oc ed ur e (C os to st ar t)

P ro ce du

re to

en fo rc e a co nt ra ct

(C on tr ac te nf )

St ar t- up

pr oc ed ur es

to re gi st er

a bu

si ne ss

(S ta rt u pp

ro ce d)

T ra de

op en ne ss

F in an ci al

op en ne ss

T ra de

op en ne ss

F in an ci al

op en ne ss

T ra de

op en ne ss

F in an ci al

op en ne ss

C on st an t

− 31 .8 11

− 46

.0 97

* − 40

.8 54

** − 55

.9 7* **

0. 53 0

0. 24 1

0. 17 7

1. 24

9* **

0. 43 5

0. 29 3

− 0. 21 6

− 0. 44 1

(0 .1 75 )

(0 .0 94

) (0 .0 11

) (0 .0 00

) (0 .2 06 )

(0 .5 72 )

(0 .6 63 )

(0 .0 05

) (0 .4 35 )

(0 .5 98 )

(0 .6 47 )

(0 .2 20 )

C os to st ar t (− 1)

0. 86

8* **

0. 84

3* **

0. 93

9* **

0. 97

5* **

– –

(0 .0 00

) (0 .0 00

) C on tr ac te nf

(− 1)

– –

0. 96

8* **

0. 98

2* **

0. 99

6* **

0. 96

6* **

– –

(0 .0 00

) (0 .0 00

) St ar tu pp

ro ce d (− 1)

– –

0. 95

8* **

0. 95

8* **

0. 95

8* **

0. 98

6* **

(0 .0 00

) (0 .0 00

) M ob ile

0. 03 7

– 0. 20

3* *

– 0. 00 1

– − 0. 00 04

– − 0. 01

7* **

– 0. 00 02

–

(0 .8 56 )

(0 .0 47

) (0 .5 21 )

(0 .6 05 )

(0 .0 01

) (0 .9 48 )

In te rn et

– − 0. 57 1

– 0. 99

3* **

– 0. 01

5* **

– − 0. 00 05

– − 0. 08

1* **

– − 0. 01 3

(0 .4 53 )

(0 .0 06

) (0 .0 07

) (0 .7 99 )

(0 .0 00

) (0 .1 28 )

T ra de

− 0. 14 0

0. 01 8

– –

0. 00

2* **

0. 00

5* **

– –

− 0. 00 2

− 0. 00 5

– –

(0 .1 40 )

(0 .8 96 )

(0 .0 00

) (0 .0 00

) (0 .2 13 )

(0 .1 37 )

F D I

– –

0. 45 9

0. 85

4* **

– –

0. 00 1

0. 00

4* **

– –

− 0. 01

9* *

0. 00 04

(0 .1 04 )

(0 .0 00

) (0 .6 83 )

(0 .0 02

) (0 .0 24

) (0 .9 03 )

M ob ile .T ra de

0. 00

4* **

– –

– − 0. 00

00 4 ** *

– –

– 0. 00

01 ** *

– –

–

(0 .0 02

) (0 .0 02

) (0 .0 00

) M ob ile .F D I

– –

− 0. 00 00 1

– –

– 0. 00 00 1

– –

– 0. 00

04 ** *

–

(0 .9 98 )

(0 .8 15 )

(0 .0 06

) In te rn et .T ra de

– 0. 01

2* –

– –

− 0. 00

01 ** *

– –

– 0. 00

07 ** *

– –

(0 .0 70

) (0 .0 00

) In te rn et .F D I

– –

– − 0. 00 9

– –

– − 0. 00

02 **

– –

– 0. 00

1* **

(0 .6 67 )

(0 .0 45

) (0 .0 06

) G D P gr ow

th 0. 43 6

0. 32 7

0. 62

0* **

0. 65

0* **

− 0. 00 2

0. 00 4

0. 00 04

0. 00 1

− 0. 00 1

0. 00 2

0. 00 3

0. 00 06

(0 .1 32 )

(0 .3 01 )

(0 .0 00

) (0 .0 03

) (0 .4 11 )

(0 .2 41 )

(0 .8 38 )

(0 .6 10 )

(0 .7 20 )

(0 .4 57 )

(0 .5 89 )

(0 .8 62 )

P op g

20 .4 71

** *

22 .0 21

** *

3. 96 7

5. 33 8

− 0. 00 8

− 0. 00 6

− 0. 02 8

− 0. 00 3

0. 20

4* *

0. 17

6* 0. 07 7

0. 14

7* **

(0 .0 00

) (0 .0 00

) (0 .5 52 )

(0 .2 96 )

(0 .7 91 )

(0 .7 38 )

(0 .4 70 )

(0 .8 42 )

(0 .0 24

) (0 .0 50

) (0 .3 99 )

(0 .0 01

) E du

ca ti on

0. 53

8* 0. 22 8

0. 56

9* *

0. 88

7* **

− 0. 00 2

− 0. 00 04

− 0. 00 00 5

− 0. 00 04

0. 00 1

− 0. 00 09

0. 00 2

0. 00 03

(0 .0 98

) (0 .5 67 )

(0 .0 18

) (0 .0 03

) (0 .2 83 )

(0 .7 96 )

(0 .9 77 )

(0 .7 94 )

(0 .8 26 )

(0 .8 66 )

(0 .5 85 )

(0 .9 52 )

F or ei gn

A id

− 1. 66

5* **

− 1. 79

7* **

− 1. 59

0* **

− 1. 90

9* **

− 0. 00

1* **

− 0. 00

3* **

− 0. 00 1

− 0. 00

1* **

− 0. 02

2* **

− 0. 02

4* **

− 0. 02

0* **

− 0. 02

5* **

(0 .0 00

) (0 .0 00

) (0 .0 03

) (0 .0 00

) (0 .1 40 )

(0 .0 08

) (0 .0 02

) (0 .0 00

) N et

ef fe ct s

na na

na 0. 00 1

na 0. 00 3

na na

− 0. 00 9

na A R (1 )

(0 .0 24 )

(0 .0 26 )

(0 .0 22 )

(0 .0 25 )

(0 .0 47 )

(0 .0 69 )

(0 .0 50 )

(0 .0 71 )

(0 .0 04 )

(0 .0 05 )

A R (2 )

(0 .5 38

) (0 .5 30

) (0 .5 31

) (0 .5 87

) (0 .0 49 )

(0 .0 71 )

(0 .0 49 )

(0 .0 56 )

(0 .5 65

) (0 .5 20

) (0 .5 36

) (0 .5 64

)

(c o n ti n u ed

)

Table I. ICT, openness and

entrepreneurship (first set of specifications)

285

Openness, ICT and

entrepreneurship

D ow

nl oa

de d

by W

al de

n U

ni ve

rs it

y A

t 19

:0 5

28 D

ec em

be r

20 18

( P

T )

D ep en de nt

va ri ab le s: co st

of bu

si ne ss

st ar t- up

pr oc ed ur e, pr oc ed ur e to

en fo rc e a co nt ra ct

an d st ar t- up

pr oc ed ur e to

re gi st er

a bu

si ne ss

C os t of

bu si ne ss

st ar t- up

pr oc ed ur e (C os to st ar t)

P ro ce du

re to

en fo rc e a co nt ra ct

(C on tr ac te nf )

St ar t- up

pr oc ed ur es

to re gi st er

a bu

si ne ss

(S ta rt u pp

ro ce d)

T ra de

op en ne ss

F in an ci al

op en ne ss

T ra de

op en ne ss

F in an ci al

op en ne ss

T ra de

op en ne ss

F in an ci al

op en ne ss

Sa rg an

O IR

(0 .0 40 )

(0 .0 38 )

(0 .0 39 )

(0 .3 28

) (0 .9 97

) (0 .9 68

) (0 .9 97

) (0 .9 99

) (0 .8 76

) (0 .6 28

) (0 .1 58

) (0 .0 43 )

H an se n O IR

(0 .6 02

) (0 .4 30

) (0 .2 87

) (0 .4 64

) (0 .8 04

) (0 .4 55

) (0 .5 94

) (0 .7 06

) (0 .5 16

) (0 .2 01

) (0 .5 58

) (0 .7 43

)

D H T fo r in st ru m en ts

(a )I ns tr um

en ts

in le ve ls

H ex cl ud

in g gr ou p

(0 .6 25

) (0 .2 72

) (0 .7 44

) (0 .3 10

) (0 .7 69

) (0 .9 37

) (0 .8 76

) (0 .7 61

) (0 .3 24

) (0 .4 24

) (0 .7 42

) (0 .1 84

) D if (n ul l,

H ¼ ex og en ou s)

(0 .4 94

) (0 .5 43

) (0 .1 40

) (0 .5 51

) (0 .6 68

) (0 .1 83

) (0 .3 35

) (0 .5 38

) (0 .6 04

) (0 .1 64

) (0 .3 76

) (0 .9 50

)

(b ) IV

(y ea rs ,e q( di ff ))

H ex cl ud

in g gr ou p

(0 .5 37

) (0 .4 55

) (0 .6 52

) (0 .5 13

) (0 .9 31

) (0 .8 61

) (0 .7 05

) (0 .8 86

) (0 .9 69

) (0 .7 43

) (0 .9 77

) (0 .9 61

) D if (n ul l,

H ¼ ex og en ou s)

(0 .5 58

) (0 .3 72

) (0 .0 76

) (0 .3 54

) (0 .2 96

) (0 .0 78 )

(0 .3 18

) (0 .2 41

) (0 .0 42 )

(0 .0 24 )

(0 .0 47 )

(0 .1 63

)

F is he r

72 2. 13

** *

3, 19

9. 7* **

7, 02

5. 5* **

5, 75

2. 2* **

9, 48

6. 5* **

1, 19

67 ** *

2, 33

92 ** *

7, 86

4. 1* **

3, 41

2. 6* **

4, 49

5. 0* **

1, 87

8. 9* **

2, 22

1. 0* **

In st ru m en ts

38 38

C ou nt ri es

45 44

O bs er va ti on s

26 7

26 2

26 9

26 4

26 7

26 2

26 9

26 4

26 7

26 2

26 9

26 4

N o te s:

D H T :d if fe re nc e- in -H an se n te st fo r ex og en ei ty

of in st ru m en ts ’ su bs et s; D if ,: di ff er en ce ;O

IR ,o ve r- id en ti fy in g re st ri ct io ns

te st ;n a: no t ap pl ic ab le be ca us e at

le as t on e es ti m at ed

co ef fi ci en t ne ed ed

fo r th e co m pu

ta ti on

of ne te ff ec ts is no ts ig ni fi ca nt .T

he si gn

if ic an ce

of it al ic va lu es

is tw

of ol d: th e si gn

if ic an ce

of es ti m at ed

co ef fi ci en ts ,H

au sm

an te st an d th e F is he r st at is ti cs ;t he

fa ilu

re to re je ct th e nu

ll hy

po th es es

of :n o au to co rr el at io n in th e A R (1 )

an d A R (2 ) te st s, an d th e va lid

it y of

th e in st ru m en ts

in th e O IR

an d D H T te st s. T he

m ea n va lu e of

m ob ile

ph on e pe ne tr at io n is 23 .3 79

w hi le th e m ea n va lu e of

in te rn et

pe ne tr at io n is 4. 15 2. *, ** ,* ** Si gn

if ic an t at

10 ,5

an d

1 pe r ce nt

le ve ls ,r es pe ct iv el y

Table I.

286

ITP 31,1

D ow

nl oa

de d

by W

al de

n U

ni ve

rs it

y A

t 19

:0 5

28 D

ec em

be r

20 18

( P

T )

D ep en de nt

va ri ab le s: ti m e re qu

ir ed

to bu

ild a w ar eh ou se ,t im

e re qu

ir ed

to en fo rc e a co nt ra ct

an d ti m e re qu

ir ed

to re gi st er

a pr op er ty

T im

e re qu

ir ed

to bu

ild a w ar eh ou se

(T im

ew ar eh ou se )

T im

e re qu

ir ed

to en fo rc e a co nt ra ct

(T im

en fo rc on tr )

T im

e re qu

ir ed

to re gi st er

a pr op er ty

(T im

er eg ro up

) T ra de

op en ne ss

F in an ci al

op en ne ss

T ra de

op en ne ss

F in an ci al

op en ne ss

T ra de

op en ne ss

F in an ci al

op en ne ss

C on st an t

15 .8 12

** 47

.5 73

** *

4. 40 0

19 .5 93

** *

63 .8 34

* 9. 99 3

11 2. 68

** *

3. 80 3

11 .8 41

32 .1 80

** 14

.8 26

** *

36 .2 87

** *

(0 .0 29

) (0 .0 01

) (0 .4 83 )

(0 .0 06

) (0 .0 60

) (0 .6 80 )

(0 .0 00

) (0 .7 13 )

(0 .1 13 )

(0 .0 17

) (0 .0 06

) (0 .0 00

) T im

ew ar eh ou se

(− 1)

0. 86

3* **

0. 85

2* **

0. 90

4* **

0. 87

4* **

– –

(0 .0 00

) (0 .0 00

) T im

en fo rc on tr (− 1)

– –

0. 99

5* **

1. 02

8* **

0. 95

3* **

1. 00

0* **

– –

(0 .0 00

) (0 .0 00

) T im

er eg ro up

(− 1)

– –

0. 86

1* **

0. 79

7* **

0. 84

3* **

0. 73

0* **

(0 .0 00

) (0 .0 00

) M ob ile

0. 16

4* –

0. 16

9* **

– − 0. 47

3* *

– − 0. 71

8* **

– − 0. 01 5

– − 0. 07

4* –

(0 .0 86

) (0 .0 02

) (0 .0 13

) (0 .0 00

) (0 .8 69 )

(0 .0 65

) In te rn et

– − 0. 09 4

– − 0. 05 0

– − 2. 59

1* **

– − 1. 39

3* **

– − 1. 01

2* *

– − 0. 75

4* **

(0 .7 95 )

(0 .7 75 )

(0 .0 00

) (0 .0 00

) (0 .0 13

) (0 .0 00

) T ra de

− 0. 06

8* − 0. 19

5* *

– –

− 0. 03 6

− 0. 32

0* *

– –

− 0. 11

6* *

− 0. 17

4* **

– –

(0 .0 67

) (0 .0 11

) (0 .7 00 )

(0 .0 29

) (0 .0 48

) (0 .0 08

) F D I

– –

0. 69

5* **

− 0. 03 1

– –

− 1. 62

0* **

− 0. 96

3* **

– –

− 0. 32

0* *

− 0. 31

1* **

(0 .0 00

) (0 .5 21 )

(0 .0 03

) (0 .0 00

) (0 .0 17

) (0 .0 00

) M ob ile .T ra de

0. 00 00 4

– –

– 0. 00 07

– –

– 0. 00 05

– –

–

(0 .9 48 )

(0 .6 01 )

(0 .5 86 )

M ob ile .F D I

– –

− 0. 01

2* **

– –

– 0. 04

1* **

– –

– 0. 00

3* –

(0 .0 00

) (0 .0 02

) (0 .0 85

) In te rn et .T ra de

– 0. 00 08

– –

– 0. 03

1* **

– –

– 0. 00

7* *

– –

(0 .7 18 )

(0 .0 00

) (0 .0 29

) In te rn et .F D I

– –

– 0. 02

4* **

– –

– 0. 26

5* **

– –

– 0. 01

6* **

(0 .0 05

) (0 .0 00

) (0 .0 07

) G D P gr ow

th 0. 04 0

− 0. 06 4

− 0. 08 5

0. 05 8

1. 22

5* **

1. 14

1* **

1. 08

5* **

1. 72

0* **

0. 21 0

0. 25 1

0. 38

6* **

0. 31 6

(0 .7 26 )

(0 .5 57 )

(0 .4 19 )

(0 .6 47 )

(0 .0 01

) (0 .0 06

) (0 .0 00

) (0 .2 50 )

(0 .1 71 )

(0 .0 05

) (0 .1 41 )

P op g

0. 10 9

− 1. 52

7* 2. 66

3* − 0. 07 5

− 9. 12

6* **

− 9. 03

6* **

− 6. 60

7* 0. 62 8

0. 86 0

1. 14 6

2. 38

0* 1. 87

9* (0 .9 27 )

(0 .0 72

) (0 .0 57

) (0 .9 55 )

(0 .0 01

) (0 .0 00

) (0 .0 62

) (0 .7 68 )

(0 .5 14 )

(0 .4 72 )

(0 .0 97

) (0 .0 80

) E du

ca ti on

0. 32

5* − 0. 07 3

0. 13

9* 0. 14 3

− 0. 38 3

0. 18 7

− 0. 78

4* **

− 0. 27

4* *

− 0. 07 4

− 0. 17 2

− 0. 25

0* **

− 0. 37

1* *

(0 .0 54

) (0 .6 75 )

(0 .0 92

) (0 .2 10 )

(0 .2 59 )

(0 .4 96 )

(0 .0 00

) (0 .0 21

) (0 .5 69 )

(0 .2 84 )

(0 .0 07

) (0 .0 10

) F or ei gn

ai d

− 0. 39

2* **

− 0. 31

9* **

− 0. 51

9* **

− 0. 43

3* **

− 0. 06 5

0. 03 1

− 0. 10 5

− 0. 06 1

0. 05 9

0. 10

7* 0. 06 6

0. 03 3

(0 .0 00

) (0 .0 00

) (0 .3 79 )

(0 .7 14 )

(0 .5 06 )

(0 .7 37 )

(0 .4 98 )

(0 .0 60

) (0 .1 52 )

(0 .2 22 )

N et

ef fe ct s

na na

0. 41 4

na na

− 0. 19 1

− 0. 66 1

0. 13 7

na − 0. 14 4

− 0. 24 9

− 0. 24 4

A R (1 )

(0 .1 36

) (0 .1 43

) (0 .1 27

) (0 .1 32

) (0 .1 01

) (0 .1 20

) (0 .0 91 )

(0 .0 85 )

(0 .0 61 )

(0 .0 70 )

(0 .0 64 )

(0 .0 76 )

A R (2 )

(0 .1 14

) (0 .1 94

) (0 .1 47

) (0 .2 13

) (0 .6 94

) (0 .4 37

) (0 .4 17

) (0 .3 49

) (0 .2 04

) (0 .1 93

) (0 .2 39

) (0 .1 31

)

(c o n ti n u ed

)

Table II. ICT, openness and entrepreneurship

(second set of specifications)

287

Openness, ICT and

entrepreneurship

D ow

nl oa

de d

by W

al de

n U

ni ve

rs it

y A

t 19

:0 5

28 D

ec em

be r

20 18

( P

T )

D ep en de nt

va ri ab le s: ti m e re qu

ir ed

to bu

ild a w ar eh ou se ,t im

e re qu

ir ed

to en fo rc e a co nt ra ct

an d ti m e re qu

ir ed

to re gi st er

a pr op er ty

T im

e re qu

ir ed

to bu

ild a w ar eh ou se

(T im

ew ar eh ou se )

T im

e re qu

ir ed

to en fo rc e a co nt ra ct

(T im

en fo rc on tr )

T im

e re qu

ir ed

to re gi st er

a pr op er ty

(T im

er eg ro up

) T ra de

op en ne ss

F in an ci al

op en ne ss

T ra de

op en ne ss

F in an ci al

op en ne ss

T ra de

op en ne ss

F in an ci al

op en ne ss

Sa rg an

O IR

(0 .6 64

) (0 .5 12

) (0 .2 08

) (0 .0 77

) (0 .3 25

) (0 .0 91 )

(0 .1 62

) (0 .3 07

) (0 .7 60

) (0 .8 33

) (0 .9 32

) (0 .9 44

) H an se n O IR

(0 .6 42

) (0 .7 63

) (0 .8 24

) (0 .7 88

) (0 .8 70

) (0 .7 06

) (0 .3 77

) (0 .0 97

) (0 .9 74

) (0 .9 46

) (0 .9 08

) (0 .6 59

)

D H T fo r in st ru m en ts

(a )I ns tr um

en ts

in le ve ls

H ex cl ud

in g gr ou p

(0 .7 32

) (0 .5 01

) (0 .7 00

) (0 .7 18

) (0 .4 04

) (0 .5 02

) (0 .2 96

) (0 .1 29

) (0 .8 51

) (0 .7 86

) (0 .7 77

) (0 .5 01

) D if (n ul l, H ¼ ex og en ou s)

(0 .4 77

) (0 .7 76

) (0 .7 41

) (0 .6 77

) (0 .9 39

) (0 .7 03

) (0 .4 51

) (0 .1 82

) (0 .9 36

) (0 .8 99

) (0 .8 34

) (0 .6 46

) (b ) IV

(y ea rs ,e q( di ff ))

H ex cl ud

in g gr ou p

(0 .4 86

) (0 .7 42

) (0 .6 61

) (0 .9 05

) (0 .8 38

) (0 .6 67

) 0. 45

9) (0 .2 02

) (0 .9 38

) (0 .8 01

) (0 .9 09

) (0 .4 60

) D if (n ul l, H ¼ ex og en ou s)

(0 .7 76

) (0 .5 38

) (0 .8 82

) (0 .2 53

) (0 .6 44

) (0 .5 58

) (0 .2 86

) (0 .1 11

) (0 .8 49

) (0 .9 67

) (0 .5 84

) (0 .8 23

) F is he r

2, 17

8. 4* **

1, 37

4. 5* **

88 0. 26

** *

3, 11

5. 8* **

5, 87

8. 7* **

1, 41

60 ** *

1, 57

54 ** *

2, 35

41 ** *

62 9. 17

** *

65 1. 30

** *

1, 58

8. 7* **

80 7. 74

** *

In st ru m en ts

36 36

38 38

37 37

C ou nt ri es

44 43

45 44

O bs er va ti on s

20 5

20 0

20 7

20 2

26 7

26 2

26 9

26 4

24 1

23 6

24 3

23 8

N o te s: D H T :d if fe re nc e- in -H an se n te st fo r ex og en ei ty

of in st ru m en ts ’s ub

se ts ;D

if :d if fe re nc e; O IR :o ve r- id en ti fy in g re st ri ct io ns

te st ;n a: no ta pp

lic ab le be ca us e at le as to ne

es ti m at ed

co ef fi ci en tn

ee de d fo r th e co m pu

ta ti on

of ne t

ef fe ct s is no t si gn

if ic an t. T he

si gn

if ic an ce

of it al ic va lu es

is tw

of ol d: th e si gn

if ic an ce

of es ti m at ed

co ef fi ci en ts ,H

au sm

an te st an d th e F is he r st at is ti cs ;t he

fa ilu

re to

re je ct th e nu

ll hy

po th es es

of :n o au to co rr el at io n in

th e A R (1 )

an d A R (2 ) te st s, an d th e va lid

it y of

th e in st ru m en ts

in th e O IR

an d D H T te st s. T he

m ea n va lu e of

m ob ile

ph on e pe ne tr at io n is 23 .3 79

w hi le th e m ea n va lu e of

in te rn et

pe ne tr at io n is 4. 15 2. *, ** ,* ** Si gn

if ic an t at

10 ,5

an d

1 pe r ce nt

le ve ls ,r es pe ct iv el y

Table II.

288

ITP 31,1

D ow

nl oa

de d

by W

al de

n U

ni ve

rs it

y A

t 19

:0 5

28 D

ec em

be r

20 18

( P

T )

D ep en de nt

va ri ab le s: ti m e re qu

ir ed

to st ar t a bu

si ne ss ,t im

e to

ex po rt s an d ti m e to

pr ep ar e an d pa y ta xe s

T im

e re qu

ir ed

to st ar t a bu

si ne ss

(T im

es ta rt bu

s) T im

e to

ex po rt (T im

ex po rt )

T im

e to

pr ep ar e an d pa y ta xe s (T im

et ax es )

T ra de

op en ne ss

F in an ci al

op en ne ss

T ra de

op en ne ss

F in an ci al

op en ne ss

T ra de

op en ne ss

F in an ci al

op en ne ss

C on st an t

− 7. 54 3

− 4. 99 7

− 14

.5 8* **

− 13

.5 1* **

− 3. 65

3* *

− 5. 83

0* **

− 1. 80 5

2. 28

9* *

12 .0 16

20 .4 06

1. 39 3

4. 93 3

(0 .2 89 )

(0 .3 00 )

(0 .0 00

) (0 .0 00

) (0 .0 32

) (0 .0 01

) (0 .2 84 )

(0 .0 38

) (0 .4 61 )

(0 .2 83 )

(0 .8 51 )

(0 .7 32 )

T im

es ta rt bu

s (− 1)

1. 13

2* **

1. 06

3* **

0. 89

8* **

0. 97

0* *

– –

(0 .0 00

) (0 .0 00

) T im

ex po rt (− 1)

– –

0. 97

0* **

1. 03

1* **

0. 92

2* **

0. 09

82 ** *

– –

(0 .0 00

) (0 .0 00

) T im

et ax es

(− 1)

– –

1. 03

1* **

1. 03

9* **

1. 01

3* **

1. 01

7* **

(0 .0 00

) (0 .0 00

) M ob ile

− 0. 04 5

– 0. 06

3* –

0. 02

6* –

0. 01 6

– − 0. 20

1* –

− 0. 03 9

–

(0 .5 39 )

(0 .0 65

) (0 .0 95

) (0 .1 17 )

(0 .0 82

) (0 .4 79 )

In te rn et

– − 0. 63

3* **

– 0. 04 4

– − 0. 00 5

– − 0. 08

8* **

– − 1. 01

4* –

0. 09 2

(0 .0 04

) (0 .5 82 )

(0 .9 24 )

(0 .0 03

) (0 .0 79

) (0 .7 81 )

T ra de

− 0. 11

4* **

− 0. 19

2* **

– –

0. 02

1* **

0. 03

5* **

– –

− 0. 25

3* **

− 0. 18

8* *

– –

(0 .0 03

) (0 .0 00

) (0 .0 03

) (0 .0 01

) (0 .0 47

) F D I

– –

0. 26

7* **

0. 09

1* –

– 0. 01 3

− 0. 02

6* **

– –

− 0. 17 9

− 0. 02 5

(0 .0 00

) (0 .0 54

) (0 .7 04 )

(0 .0 06

) (0 .1 43 )

(0 .7 63 )

M ob ile .T ra de

0. 00

1* *

– –

– − 0. 00 01

– –

– 0. 00

2* **

– –

–

(0 .0 38

) (0 .4 32 )

(0 .0 01

) M ob ile .F D I

– –

− 0. 00

2* –

– –

− 0. 00 03

– –

– 0. 00 2

–

(0 .0 70

) (0 .6 47 )

(0 .3 19 )

In te rn et .T ra de

– 0. 00

9* **

– –

– − 0. 00 01

– –

– 0. 00

9* *

– –

(0 .0 00

) (0 .7 99 )

(0 .0 25

) In te rn et .F D I

– –

– 0. 01

9* *

– –

– 0. 00 2

– –

– − 0. 00 5

(0 .0 19

) (0 .2 72 )

(0 .4 70 )

G D P gr ow

th 0. 38

2* **

0. 12

4* 0. 03 6

0. 08 6

− 0. 06

2* *

− 0. 03 2

− 0. 06

1* − 0. 10

2* **

− 0. 21 6

− 0. 20 5

− 0. 17

7* − 0. 26

9* *

(0 .0 00

) (0 .0 96

) (0 .6 64 )

(0 .1 48 )

(0 .0 44

) (0 .1 83 )

(0 .0 77

) (0 .0 02

) (0 .2 44 )

(0 .2 41 )

(0 .0 75

) (0 .0 30

) P op g

− 0. 95 7

0. 76 7

2. 27

9* *

3. 24

0* **

0. 05 8

0. 17 3

− 0. 54

1* *

− 0. 77

2* **

0. 39 3

0. 74 8

1. 03 6

0. 82 1

(0 .3 22 )

(0 .1 08 )

(0 .0 18

) (0 .0 00

) (0 .8 01 )

(0 .2 33 )

(0 .0 32

) (0 .0 09

) (0 .7 24 )

(0 .6 78 )

(0 .2 68 )

(0 .5 81 )

E du

ca ti on

0. 21

6* *

0. 24

4* **

0. 15

3* **

0. 09

5* *

0. 04 5

0. 03 0

0. 08

6* **

0. 00 05

− 0. 18 3

− 0. 47

7* − 0. 20 4

− 0. 28 2

(0 .0 48

) (0 .0 01

) (0 .0 05

) (0 .0 15

) (0 .1 41 )

(0 .2 23 )

(0 .0 06

) (0 .9 82 )

(0 .4 84 )

(0 .0 64

) (0 .2 25 )

(0 .2 30 )

F or ei gn

ai d

− 0. 15

5* **

− 0. 10

4* **

− 0. 32

0* **

− 0. 32

0* **

0. 00 6

− 0. 00 7

0. 02

6* *

0. 02

8* *

0. 21

3* **

0. 15

9* *

0. 05

0* 0. 04 3

(0 .0 01

) (0 .0 00

) (0 .2 23 )

(0 .3 86 )

(0 .0 22

) (0 .0 11

) (0 .0 01

) (0 .0 28

) (0 .0 57

) (0 .2 55 )

N et

ef fe ct s

− 0. 09 0

− 0. 15 4

0. 22 0

0. 16 9

na na

− 0. 20 6

− 0. 15 0

na na

A R (1 )

(0 .0 78 )

(0 .0 88 )

(0 .0 72 )

(0 .0 76 )

(0 .0 08 )

(0 .0 34 )

(0 .0 14 )

(0 .0 35 )

(0 .1 12

) (0 .1 10

) (0 .1 05

) A R (2 )

(0 .4 60

) (0 .5 10

) (0 .5 03

) (0 .4 44

) (0 .5 06

) (0 .7 51

) (0 .3 50

) (0 .9 63

) (0 .1 79

) (0 .1 87

) (0 .1 68

) (0 .1 99

)

(c o n ti n u ed

)

Table III. ICT, openness and entrepreneurship

(third set of specifications)

289

Openness, ICT and

entrepreneurship

D ow

nl oa

de d

by W

al de

n U

ni ve

rs it

y A

t 19

:0 5

28 D

ec em

be r

20 18

( P

T )

D ep en de nt

va ri ab le s: ti m e re qu

ir ed

to st ar t a bu

si ne ss ,t im

e to

ex po rt s an d ti m e to

pr ep ar e an d pa y ta xe s

T im

e re qu

ir ed

to st ar t a bu

si ne ss

(T im

es ta rt bu

s) T im

e to

ex po rt (T im

ex po rt )

T im

e to

pr ep ar e an d pa y ta xe s (T im

et ax es )

T ra de

op en ne ss

F in an ci al

op en ne ss

T ra de

op en ne ss

F in an ci al

op en ne ss

T ra de

op en ne ss

F in an ci al

op en ne ss

Sa rg an

O IR

(0 .1 57

) (0 .0 11 )

(0 .0 00 )

(0 .3 85

) (0 .8 50

) (0 .6 35

) (0 .9 41

) (0 .9 89

) (0 .9 99

) (0 .9 51

) (0 .9 98

) H an se n O IR

(0 .6 52

) (0 .8 32

) (0 .4 06

) (0 .6 21

) (0 .5 30

) (0 .8 23

) (0 .2 16

) (0 .1 98

) (0 .3 75

) (0 .7 53

) (0 .7 37

) (0 .9 03

)

D H T fo r in st ru m en ts

(a )I ns tr um

en ts

in le ve ls

H ex cl ud

in g gr ou p

(0 .5 24

) (0 .1 93

) (0 .2 84

) (0 .2 79

) (0 .1 25

) (0 .9 50

) (0 .4 18

) (0 .4 95

) (0 .7 26

) (0 .6 76

) (0 .2 92

) (0 .9 85

) D if (n ul l, H ¼ ex og en ou s)

(0 .6 22

) (0 .9 84

) (0 .5 00

) (0 .7 70

) (0 .8 48

) (0 .5 50

) (0 .1 81

) (0 .1 38

) (0 .2 13

) (0 .6 54

) (0 .8 78

) (0 .6 38

) (b ) IV

(y ea rs ,e q( di ff ))

H ex cl ud

in g gr ou p

(0 .7 38

) (0 .8 01

) (0 .6 09

) (0 .5 25

) (0 .5 91

) (0 .7 14

) (0 .1 31

) (0 .2 45

) (0 .3 95

) (0 .7 54

) (0 .7 58

) (0 .8 14

) D if (n ul l, H ¼ ex og en ou s)

(0 .3 62

) (0 .6 15

) (0 .1 88

) (0 .6 12

) (0 .3 27

) (0 .7 73

) (0 .6 56

) (0 .2 39

) (0 .3 50

) (0 .5 05

) (0 .4 42

) (0 .8 24

) F is he r

1, 64

4. 5* **

2, 47

6. 5* **

2, 27

1. 0* **

1, 15

0. 8* **

29 3. 75

** *

1, 89

0. 6* **

96 1. 32

** *

7, 66

9. 3* **

4, 01

7. 4* **

5, 33

4. 5* **

5, 31

7. 9* **

3, 34

0. 3* **

In st ru m en ts

38 38

36 36

C ou nt ri es

45 44

O bs er va ti on s

26 7

26 2

26 9

16 4

21 1

20 6

21 3

20 8

21 1

20 6

21 3

20 8

N o te s: D H T :d if fe re nc e- in -H an se n te st fo r ex og en ei ty

of in st ru m en ts ’s ub

se ts ;D

if :d if fe re nc e; O IR :o ve r- id en ti fy in g re st ri ct io ns

te st ;n a: no ta pp

lic ab le be ca us e at le as to ne

es ti m at ed

co ef fi ci en tn

ee de d fo r th e co m pu

ta ti on

of ne t

ef fe ct s is no t si gn

if ic an t. T he

si gn

if ic an ce

of it al ic va lu es

is tw

of ol d: th e si gn

if ic an ce

of es ti m at ed

co ef fi ci en ts ,H

au sm

an te st an d th e F is he r st at is ti cs ;a nd

th e fa ilu

re to

re je ct

th e nu

ll hy

po th es es

of :n o au to co rr el at io n in

th e

A R (1 )a nd

A R (2 )t es ts ,a nd

th e va lid

it y of

th e in st ru m en ts in

th e O IR

an d D H T te st s. T he

m ea n va lu e of

m ob ile

ph on e pe ne tr at io n is 23 .3 79

w hi le th e m ea n va lu e of

in te rn et pe ne tr at io n is 4. 15 2. *, ** ,* ** Si gn

if ic an t at

10 ,5

an d

1 pe r ce nt

le ve ls ,r es pe ct iv el y

Table III.

290

ITP 31,1

D ow

nl oa

de d

by W

al de

n U

ni ve

rs it

y A

t 19

:0 5

28 D

ec em

be r

20 18

( P

T )

Fifth, trade (FDI) interacts with the internet (mobile phones) to have a net effect in reducing the time required to enforce a contract whereas for the most part, ICT complements openness to reduce the time required to register a property. Sixth, ICT interacts with trade openness to have net negative effects on the “time required to start a business” and the “time required to prepare and pay taxes”.

4.2 Further discussion of results and policy implications 4.2.1 Further discussion of results and practical implications. As apparent from the findings while there is substantial evidence that ICT complements openness to improve conditions for entrepreneurship, the effects are contingent on the dynamics of openness, ICT and entrepreneurship. The findings broadly suggest that transparency through ICT is important in the effect of openness on doing business constraints. The relevance of ICT in

Time to resolve insolvency (Timeresinsolv) Trade openness Financial openness

Constant −0.044*** (0.000) 0.0002 (0.972) −0.023*** (0.000) 0.009*** (0.000) Timeresinsolv (−1) 1.010*** (0.000) 1.000*** (0.00) 1.007*** (0.000) 0.999*** (0.000) Mobile 0.00006 (0.539) – 0.00009 (0.188) – Internet – 0.0001 (0.676) – −0.0001 (0.183) Trade 0.00007** (0.023) −0.00001 (0.710) – – FDI – – 0.0001 (0.372) −0.00004 (0.517) Mobile.Trade 0.0000001 (0.727) – – – Mobile.FDI – – −0.000002 (0.311) – Internet.Trade – −0.0000001 (0.926) – – Internet.FDI – – – 0.000004 (0.446) GDP growth −0.0001 (0.550) −0.0001 (0.447) −0.0003** (0.028) −0.0001 (0.265) Popg 0.0005 (0.536) −0.0002 (0.796) 0.001* (0.081) −0.0002 (0.814) Education 0.00005 (0.634) 0.00003 (0.811) −0.00009 (0.236) −0.0001 (0.143) Foreign aid – – – – Net effects na na na na AR(1) (0.317) (0.317) (0.316) (0.317) AR(2) (0.307) (0.761) (0.562) (0.767) Sargan OIR (0.999) (1.000) (0.987) (1.000) Hansen OIR (0.980) (1.000) (0.956) (1.000)

DHT for instruments (a)Instruments in levels H excluding group (0.978) (0.984) (0.981) (0.983) Dif(null, H ¼ exogenous) (0.882) (1.000) (0.793) (1.000)

(b) IV (years, eq(diff)) H excluding group (0.998) (1.000) (0.998) (1.000) Dif(null, H ¼ exogenous) (0.538) (0.999) (0.399) (0.994)

Fisher 384,868.52*** 1.57e+06*** 458145.61*** 1.25e+07*** Instruments 34 34 34 34 Countries 38 37 38 37 Observations 232 228 234 230 Notes: DHT: difference-in-Hansen test for exogeneity of instruments’ subsets; Dif: difference; OIR: over-identifying restrictions test; na: not applicable because at least one estimated coefficient needed for the computation of net effects is not significant. The significance of italic values is twofold: the significance of estimated coefficients, Hausman test and the Fisher statistics; and the failure to reject the null hypotheses of: no autocorrelation in the AR(1) and AR(2) tests, and the validity of the instruments in the OIR and DHT tests. The mean value of mobile phone penetration is 23.379 while the mean value of internet penetration is 4.152. *,**,***Significant at 10, 5 and 1 per cent levels, respectively

Table IV. ICT, openness and entrepreneurship

(fourth set of specifications)

291

Openness, ICT and

entrepreneurship

D ow

nl oa

de d

by W

al de

n U

ni ve

rs it

y A

t 19

:0 5

28 D

ec em

be r

20 18

( P

T )

facilitating the doing of business is consistent with intuition and the literature because ICT contributes to enhancing competition, essentially because of falling cost/traffic per minute and positive externalities owing to network avenues (Gutierrez et al., 2009; Gille et al., 2002; Esselaar et al., 2007; Gilwald and Stork, 2008).

We have also established insignificant net estimates on constraints to doing business. This pattern of the findings is consistent with a recent co-publication by the International Finance Corporation and the World Bank (2013) on “Doing Business in the East African Community”, which shows that among 185 countries only ten countries in SSA rank among the top 100 in terms of ease of doing business. The next set of a small group of countries fall between the 109th and 134th places while for the most part, countries in the sub-region rank after the 169th position. Whereas the World Bank report does not consider ICT as the primary factor, ICT is among the several determinants for the ease of doing business.

The insignificant net effects are an indication that ICT penetration needs to be enhanced. This is essentially because the corresponding marginal effects for the most part are negative on the constraints to doing business, notably the interaction between: internet and both openness indicators in the number of procedures required to enforce a contract, and FDI and mobile phones on the time required to build a warehouse and the time required to start a business. In essence, certain thresholds of ICT penetration are required to achieve the desirable negative effects on constraints to doing business. To put this point into perspective, in Table I: 50 (0.005/0.0001) per 100 people in internet penetration and 20 (0.004/0.0002) per 100 people in internet penetration are required to, respectively, reverse the positive effects of trade and FDI on the number of procedures required to enforce a contract. In Tables II, 57.916 (0.695/0.012) per 100 people in mobile phone penetration is required to reverse the positive effect of FDI on the time required to build a warehouse, while in Table III the corresponding threshold on the time required to start a business is 133.5 (0.267/0.002) per 100 people in mobile phone penetration. The established thresholds at which ICT changes the effect of openness to reduce constraints to doing business make economic sense for the most part because they are within the ranges provided by summary statistics, notably: 0.000-147.202 for mobile phone penetration and 0.005-43.605 for internet penetration.

In the light of the above, ICT can be enhanced to reach the computed ICT modifying policy thresholds by adopting policies designed to boost ICT penetration. Hence, it is relevant for policy makers to address issues associated with the absence of adequate infrastructure as well as concerns surrounding affordability of ICT which represents important barriers to ICT penetration. Schemes on universal coverage through low pricing and provision of ICT infrastructure are some steps in this direction. Hence, ICT can play the role of an interface between openness policies, business constraints and entrepreneurs (present and potential). Such interfaces can be facilitated if ICT policies are designed to enhance, inter alia: cost-effectiveness, adoption, efficiency, access, reach and interactions.

4.2.2 Theoretical contributions/implications. Two main theoretical contributions of this study are connected to the literature, notably, complementary narratives on reducing information asymmetry and catch-up in the entrepreneurship indicators. First, with regard to the issue of information asymmetry, the net negative effect on doing business constraints is an indication that ICT reduces information asymmetry related to openness by providing timely information that facilitates the doing of business. Moreover, the inference also accords with the established evidence that ICT is negatively (positively) associated with the formal (informal) economic sector of economies in Africa (Asongu, 2013b), which further implies that entrepreneurial activities owing to increased globalisation are not exclusively limited to the formal economic sector and large companies. In a nutshell, openness driven by ICT policies

292

ITP 31,1

D ow

nl oa

de d

by W

al de

n U

ni ve

rs it

y A

t 19

:0 5

28 D

ec em

be r

20 18

( P

T )

enables conditions that reduce informational rents that previously constrained the doing of business. In other words, the complementarity between ICT and openness improves business efficiency, which is broadly consistent with the theoretical underpinnings on financial allocation efficiency by means of information sharing in the banking industry (Claus and Grimes, 2003). In the light of these analogies, the theoretical basis of information sharing in the financial industry can be extended to information asymmetry associated with increasing economic and financial openness.

Second, it is apparent from the findings that some doing business indicators are more stationary (or non-persistent or convergent) than others. For instance three main tendencies are apparent, namely: consistently stationary (cost of business start-up procedure, number of procedures to enforce a contract, number of start-up procedures to enforce a contract, time required to build a warehouse, and time required to register a property); consistently non-stationary (time required to prepare and pay taxes); and both stationary and non-stationary (time required to enforce a contract, time required to start a business, time to export and time to resolve an insolvency) business variables. From an economic interpretative standpoint, stationary (or evidence of convergence) implies that common policies on doing business can be adopted among countries because cross-country differences in the observed business variables are decreasing. The economic interpretation further indicates that theoretical underpinnings in the catch-up can be understood beyond income convergence (Asongu, 2014b). Such a theoretical insight is consistent with both studies on the neoclassical growth models (Solow, 1956; Swan, 1956; Baumol, 1986; Barro, 1991; Barro and Sala-i-Martin, 1992, 1995; Mankiw et al., 1992; Fung, 2009) and other fields of economic development, notably: the KE (Asongu, 2017b); financial markets (Narayan et al., 2011; Bruno et al., 2012); negative government signals in the prediction of social unrests (Asongu and Nwachukwu, 2016a); and inclusive human development (Mayer-Foulkes, 2010).

5. Conclusion and future research directions This study has examined how ICT influences openness to improve conditions of doing business in SSA for the period 2000-2012. ICT is proxied with internet and mobile phone penetration rates whereas openness is measured in terms of financial and trade globalisation. Ten doing business indicators are used. The empirical evidence is based on GMM with forward orthogonal deviations.

It is apparent from the findings that while there is substantial evidence that ICT complements openness to improve conditions for entrepreneurship, the effects are contingent on the dynamics of openness, ICT and entrepreneurship. Theoretical and practical policy implications have been discussed. Future research can improve extant literature by assessing how other policy variables can complement the ineluctable phenomenon of globalisation to improve entrepreneurship in SSA. Exploring good governance mechanisms should be a good step in this direction. Moreover, assessing how such interactions directly affect inclusive human development and unemployment are also worthwhile.

Notes

1. Entrepreneurship and “doing business” are used interchangeably throughout the study.

2. Openness may be used interchangeably with globalisation throughout the paper.

3. The choice of “pupil-teacher ratio” in primary education as a proxy for educational quality is motivated by the documented evidence that compared to other educational levels, primary education is more linked to higher social returns when countries at their initial stages of industrialisation (see Petrakis and Stamatakis, 2002; Asiedu, 2014).

293

Openness, ICT and

entrepreneurship

D ow

nl oa

de d

by W

al de

n U

ni ve

rs it

y A

t 19

:0 5

28 D

ec em

be r

20 18

( P

T )

References

African Economic Research Consortium (2014), “Youth employment: opportunities and challenges”, 40th Plenary Session of the AERC’s Biannual Research Workshop, Lusaka, November 30, available at: http://aercafrica.org/index.php/news-events/212-aerc-biannual-workshop-climate- change-and-economic-development-2 (accessed January 1, 2015).

Allen, T.J., Gloor, P.A., Colladon, A.F., Woerner, S.L. and Raz, O. (2016), “The power of reciprocal knowledge sharing relationships for startup success”, Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 636-651.

Amavilah, A., Asongu, S.A. and Andrés, A.R. (2017), “Effects of globalization on peace and stability: implications for governance and the knowledge economy of African countries”, Technology Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 127, September, pp. 91-103.

Anyanwu, J.C. (2012), “Developing knowledge for the economic advancement of Africa”, International Journal of Academic Research in Economics and Management Sciences, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 73-111.

Arellano, M. and Bond, S. (1991), “Some tests of specification for panel data: Monte Carlo evidence and an application to employment equations”, The Review of Economic Studies, Vol. 58 No. 2, pp. 277-297.

Arellano, M. and Bover, O. (1995), “Another look at the instrumental variable estimation of error components models”, Journal of Econometrics, Vol. 68 No. 1, pp. 29-52.

Aricat, R.G. (2015), “Is (the study of) mobile phones old wine in a new bottle? A polemic on communication-based acculturation research”, Information Technology & People, Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 806-824.

Asiedu, E. (2014), “Does foreign aid in education promote economic growth? Evidence from sub-Saharan Africa”, Journal of African Development, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 37-59.

Asongu, S.A. (2013a), “How would population growth affect investment in the future? Asymmetric panel causality evidence for Africa”, African Development Review, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 14-29.

Asongu, S.A. (2013b), “How has mobile phone penetration stimulated financial development in Africa”, Journal of African Business, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 7-18.

Asongu, S.A. (2014a), “Globalization (fighting) corruption and development: how are these phenomena linearly and nonlinearly related in wealth effect?”, Journal of Economic Studies, Vol. 41 No. 3, pp. 346-369.

Asongu, S.A. (2014b), “African development: beyond income convergence”, South African Journal of Economics, Vol. 83 No. 3, pp. 334-353.

Asongu, S.A. (2015), “Long-term effects of population growth on aggregate investment dynamics: selected country evidence for Africa”, African Journal of Economic and Management Studies, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 225-250.

Asongu, S.A. (2017a), “Conditional determinants of mobile phones penetration and mobile banking in sub-Saharan Africa”, Journal of the Knowledge Economy, doi: 10.1007%2Fs13132-015-0322-z.

Asongu, S.A. (2017b), “Knowledge economy gaps, policy syndromes and catch-up strategies: fresh South Korean lessons to Africa”, Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 211-253.

Asongu, S.A. and De Moor, L. (2017), “Financial globalisation dynamic thresholds for financial development: evidence from Africa”, The European Journal of Development Research, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 192-212.

Asongu, S.A. and Le Roux, S. (2017), “Enhancing ICT for inclusive human development in sub-Saharan Africa”, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 118, May, pp. 44-54.

Asongu, S.A. and Nwachukwu, J. (2016a), “Revolution empirics: predicting the Arab spring”, Empirical Economics, Vol. 51 No. 2, pp. 439-482.

294

ITP 31,1

D ow

nl oa

de d

by W

al de

n U

ni ve

rs it

y A

t 19

:0 5

28 D

ec em

be r

20 18

( P

T )

http://aercafrica.org/index.php/news-events/212-aerc-biannual-workshop-climate-change-and-economic-development-2

https://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?doi=10.1108%2FITP-02-2017-0033&system=10.1108%2FAJEMS-12-2012-0083&isi=000218973100002&citationId=p_13

https://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?doi=10.1108%2FITP-02-2017-0033&crossref=10.2307%2F2297968&isi=A1991FG98300005&citationId=p_5

https://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?doi=10.1108%2FITP-02-2017-0033&crossref=10.1016%2F0304-4076%2894%2901642-D&isi=A1995RF39200003&citationId=p_6

https://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?doi=10.1108%2FITP-02-2017-0033&crossref=10.1007%2Fs13132-015-0321-0&isi=000407746100011&citationId=p_15

https://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?doi=10.1108%2FITP-02-2017-0033&system=10.1108%2FITP-09-2014-0223&isi=000370546200006&citationId=p_7

https://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?doi=10.1108%2FITP-02-2017-0033&crossref=10.1057%2Fejdr.2016.10&citationId=p_16

https://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?doi=10.1108%2FITP-02-2017-0033&crossref=10.1016%2Fj.techfore.2017.01.026&isi=000400033600004&citationId=p_17

https://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?doi=10.1108%2FITP-02-2017-0033&crossref=10.1080%2F15228916.2013.765309&citationId=p_10

https://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?doi=10.1108%2FITP-02-2017-0033&crossref=10.1007%2Fs00181-015-1013-0&isi=000381117700001&citationId=p_18

https://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?doi=10.1108%2FITP-02-2017-0033&crossref=10.1111%2Fj.1467-8268.2013.12010.x&isi=000316322300002&citationId=p_9

https://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?doi=10.1108%2FITP-02-2017-0033&crossref=10.1007%2Fs00181-015-1013-0&isi=000381117700001&citationId=p_18

https://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?doi=10.1108%2FITP-02-2017-0033&system=10.1108%2FJES-04-2012-0048&citationId=p_11

https://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?doi=10.1108%2FITP-02-2017-0033&system=10.1108%2FJSBED-08-2015-0110&isi=000382560400003&citationId=p_2

https://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?doi=10.1108%2FITP-02-2017-0033&crossref=10.1016%2Fj.techfore.2017.04.013&citationId=p_3

https://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?doi=10.1108%2FITP-02-2017-0033&crossref=10.1111%2Fsaje.12021&citationId=p_12

https://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?doi=10.1108%2FITP-02-2017-0033&crossref=10.1016%2Fj.techfore.2017.04.013&citationId=p_3

https://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?doi=10.1108%2FITP-02-2017-0033&crossref=10.1111%2Fsaje.12021&citationId=p_12

Asongu, S.A. and Nwachukwu, J.C. (2016b), “The role of governance in mobile phones for inclusive human development in sub-Saharan Africa”, Technovation, Vols 55-56, September-October, pp. 1-13.

Asongu, S.A. and Nwachukwu, J.C. (2016c), “The mobile phone in the diffusion of knowledge for institutional quality in sub Saharan Africa”, World Development, Vol. 86, October, pp. 133-147.

Asongu, S.A. and Tchamyou, V.S. (2016), “The impact of entrepreneurship on knowledge economy in Africa”, Journal of Entrepreneurship in Emerging Economies, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 101-131.

Asongu, S.A., Amavilah, V. and Andrés, A.R. (2014), “Economic implications of business dynamics for KE-associated economic growth and inclusive development in African countries”, African Governance and Development Institute Working Paper No. 14/023, Yaoundé.

Baltagi, B.H. (2008), “Forecasting with panel data”, Journal of Forecasting, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 153-173.

Barro, R. (1991), “Economic growth in a cross section of countries”, Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 196 No. 2, pp. 407-443.

Barro, R.J. and Sala-i-Martin, X. (1992), “Convergence”, Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 100 No. 2, pp. 223-251.

Barro, R.J. and Sala-i-Martin, X. (1995), Economic Growth, The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

Baumol, W.J. (1986), “Productivity, growth, convergence and welfare: what the long run data show”, American Economic Review, Vol. 76 No. 5, pp. 1072-1085.

Blundell, R. and Bond, S. (1998), “Initial conditions and moment restrictions in dynamic panel data models”, Journal of Econometrics, Vol. 87 No. 1, pp. 115-143.

Bond, S., Hoeffler, A. and Tample, J. (2001), GMM Estimation of Empirical Growth Models, University of Oxford, Oxford.

Brambor, T., Clark, W.M. and Golder, M. (2006), “Understanding interaction models: improving empirical analyses”, Political Analysis, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 63-82.

Brixiova, Z., Ncube, M. and Bicaba, Z. (2015), “Skills and youth entrepreneurship in Africa: analysis with evidence from Swaziland”, World Development, Vol. 67 No. 3, pp. 11-26.

Bruno, G., De Bonis, R. and Silvestrini, A. (2012), “Do financial systems converge? New evidence from financial assets in OECD countries”, Journal of Comparative Economics, Vol. 40 No. 1, pp. 141-155.

Byrne, E., Nicholson, B. and Salem, F. (2011), “Information communication technologies and the millennium development goals”, Information Technology for Development, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 1-3.

Carmody, P. (2013), “A knowledge economy or an information society in Africa? The integration and the mobile phone revolution”, Information Technology for Development, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 24-39.

Chavula, H.K. (2013), “Telecommunications development and economic growth in Africa”, Information Technology for Development, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 5-23.

Claus, I. and Grimes, A. (2003), “Asymmetric information, financial intermediation and the monetary transmission mechanism: a critical review”, NZ Treasury Working Paper No. 13/019, Wellington.

Devarajan, S., Easterly, W. and Pack, H. (2001), “Is investment in Africa too high or too low? Macro- and micro-evidence”, Journal of African Economies, Vol. 10 No. S2, pp. 81-108.

Dewan, S. and Ramaprasad, J. (2014), “Social media, traditional media and music sales”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 38 No. 1, pp. 101-128.

Eifert, B., Gelb, A. and Ramachandran, V. (2005), “Business environment and comparative advantage in Africa: evidence from the investment climate data”, Working Paper No. 56, Center for Global Development, Washington, DC.

Eifert, B., Gelb, A. and Ramachandran, V. (2008), “The cost of doing business in Africa: evidence from enterprise survey data”, World Development, Vol. 36 No. 9, pp. 1531-1546.

Esselaar, B., Gilwald, A. and Stork, C. (2007), “Towards an Africa e-index: telecommunications sector performance in 16 African countries”, Research ICT Africa, Cape Town, available at: www.researchICTafrica.net (accessed January 1, 2015).

295

Openness, ICT and

entrepreneurship

D ow

nl oa

de d

by W

al de

n U

ni ve

rs it

y A

t 19

:0 5

28 D

ec em

be r

20 18

( P

T )

www.researchICTafrica.net

https://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?doi=10.1108%2FITP-02-2017-0033&system=10.1108%2FJEEE-08-2015-0045&isi=000413209400006&citationId=p_21

https://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?doi=10.1108%2FITP-02-2017-0033&crossref=10.1093%2Fjae%2F10.Suppl2.81&isi=000171762700005&citationId=p_37

https://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?doi=10.1108%2FITP-02-2017-0033&crossref=10.1920%2Fwp.cem.2001.0601&citationId=p_29

https://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?doi=10.1108%2FITP-02-2017-0033&crossref=10.2139%2Fssrn.2538318&citationId=p_22

https://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?doi=10.1108%2FITP-02-2017-0033&crossref=10.1093%2Fpan%2Fmpi014&isi=000233843100003&citationId=p_30

https://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?doi=10.1108%2FITP-02-2017-0033&crossref=10.2139%2Fssrn.2538318&citationId=p_22

https://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?doi=10.1108%2FITP-02-2017-0033&crossref=10.25300%2FMISQ%2F2014%2F38.1.05&isi=000342493400006&citationId=p_38

https://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?doi=10.1108%2FITP-02-2017-0033&crossref=10.1016%2Fj.worlddev.2014.09.027&citationId=p_31

https://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?doi=10.1108%2FITP-02-2017-0033&crossref=10.1002%2Ffor.1047&isi=000254268700004&citationId=p_23

https://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?doi=10.1108%2FITP-02-2017-0033&crossref=10.2139%2Fssrn.1112857&citationId=p_39

https://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?doi=10.1108%2FITP-02-2017-0033&crossref=10.1016%2Fj.worlddev.2007.09.007&isi=000259727600003&citationId=p_40

https://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?doi=10.1108%2FITP-02-2017-0033&crossref=10.1016%2Fj.jce.2011.09.003&isi=000300862800009&citationId=p_32

https://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?doi=10.1108%2FITP-02-2017-0033&crossref=10.2307%2F2937943&citationId=p_24

https://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?doi=10.1108%2FITP-02-2017-0033&crossref=10.1080%2F02681102.2010.513825&isi=000299344200001&citationId=p_33

https://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?doi=10.1108%2FITP-02-2017-0033&crossref=10.1086%2F261816&isi=A1992HM65700001&citationId=p_25

https://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?doi=10.1108%2FITP-02-2017-0033&crossref=10.1080%2F02681102.2012.719859&isi=000314345500003&citationId=p_34

https://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?doi=10.1108%2FITP-02-2017-0033&crossref=10.1080%2F02681102.2012.694794&isi=000314345500002&citationId=p_35

https://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?doi=10.1108%2FITP-02-2017-0033&isi=A1986F224600012&citationId=p_27

https://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?doi=10.1108%2FITP-02-2017-0033&crossref=10.1080%2F02681102.2012.694794&isi=000314345500002&citationId=p_35

https://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?doi=10.1108%2FITP-02-2017-0033&crossref=10.1016%2Fj.worlddev.2016.05.012&isi=000380602900010&citationId=p_20

https://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?doi=10.1108%2FITP-02-2017-0033&crossref=10.1016%2FS0304-4076%2898%2900009-8&isi=000075691500005&citationId=p_28

Fafchamps, M. (2001), “Networks, communities and markets in sub-Saharan Africa: implications for firm growth and investment”, Journal of African Economies, Vol. 10 No. S2, pp. 109-142.

Fung, M.K. (2009), “Financial development and economic growth: convergence or divergence?”, Journal of International Money and Finance, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 56-67.

Gerba, D.T. (2012), “Impact of entrepreneurship education on entrepreneurial intentions of business and engineering students in Ethiopia”, African Journal of Economic and Management Studies, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 258-277.

Gille, L., Noumba Um, P., Rudel, C. and Simon, L. (Eds) (2002), A Model for Calculating Interconnection Costs in Telecommunications, The World Bank, Washington, DC, available at: www.ppiaf.org/ sites/ppiaf.org/files/publication/WB%20-%20Model%20Calculating%20Interconnection%20 Costs%20Telecoms%202004.pdf (accessed November 27, 2014).

Gilwald, A. and Stork, C. (2008), “Towards evidence-based ICT policy and regulation: ICT access and usage in Africa”, Volume 1 policy Paper Two, Research ICT Africa, Cape Town, available at: www.researchICTafrica.net (accessed January 1, 2015).

Gripenberg, P. (2011), “Computer self-efficacy in the information society: design of learning strategies, mechanisms and skill areas”, Information Technology & People, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 303-331.

Gunning, J.W. and Mengistae, T. (2001), “Determinants of African manufacturing investment: the microeconomic evidence”, Journal of African Economies, Vol. 10 No. S2, pp. 48-80.

Gutierrez, L.H., Lee, S. and Virto, L.R. (2009), Market Concentration and Performance in Mobile Markets in Africa and Latin America, OECD Development Center (mimeo), Paris.

Hossain, M.A. and Quaddus, M. (2011), “The adoption and continued usage intention of RFID: an integrated framework”, Information Technology & People, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 236-256.

Ita, J.J., Singh, P. and Adelosa, S. (2014), Factor that Influence Entrepreneurial Intentions Among Undergraduates of South-South and Southeast Nigeria, Oxford Brookes University, Oxford, available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2506268 (accessed December 8, 2014).

Johri, A. and Nair, S. (2011), “The role of design values in information system development for human benefit”, Information Technology & People, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 281-302.

Jones, N., Borgman, R. and Ulusoy, E. (2015), “Impact of social media on small businesses”, Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 611-632.

Kamel, S. (2005), “The use of information technology to transform the banking sector in developing nations”, Information Technology for Development, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 305-312.

Kautz, K. (2011), “Investigating the design process: participatory design in agile software development”, Information Technology & People, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 217-235.

Khavul, S., Bruton, J.D. and Wood, E. (2009), “Informal family business in Africa”, Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, Vol. 33 No. 6, pp. 1219-1238.

Kivuneki, F.N., Ekenberg, L., Danielson, M. and Tusubira, F.F. (2011), “Perceptions of the role of ICT on quality of life in rural communities in Uganda”, Information Technology for Development, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 61-80.

Kreps, D. and Kimppa, K. (2015), “Theorising Web 3.0: ICTs in a changing society”, Information Technology & People, Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 726-741.

Kuada, J. (2009), “Gender, social networks, and entrepreneurship in Ghana”, Journal of African Business, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 85-103.

Kuada, J. (2015), “Private enterprise-led economic development in sub-Saharan Africa”, in Kuada, J. (Ed.), The Human Side of Growth, 1st ed., Palgrave Macmillan, New York, NY, pp. 3-223.

Lahtiranta, J., Koskinen, J.S.S., Knaapi-Junnila, S. and Nurminen, M. (2015), “Sensemaking in the personal health space”, Information Technology & People, Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 790-805.

Lennerfors, T.T., Fors, P. and van Rooijen, J. (2015), “ICT and environmental sustainability in a changing society: the view of ecological world systems theory”, Information Technology & People, Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 758-774.

296

ITP 31,1

D ow

nl oa

de d

by W

al de

n U

ni ve

rs it

y A

t 19

:0 5

28 D

ec em

be r

20 18

( P

T )

www.ppiaf.org/sites/ppiaf.org/files/publication/WB%20-%20Model%20Calculating%20Interconnection%20Costs%20Telecoms%202004.pdf

www.researchICTafrica.net

http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2506268

https://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?doi=10.1108%2FITP-02-2017-0033&system=10.1108%2FITP-09-2014-0214&isi=000370546200005&citationId=p_61

https://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?doi=10.1108%2FITP-02-2017-0033&system=10.1108%2FJSBED-09-2013-0133&isi=000212279500002&citationId=p_53

https://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?doi=10.1108%2FITP-02-2017-0033&system=10.1108%2FITP-09-2014-0219&isi=000370546200003&citationId=p_62

https://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?doi=10.1108%2FITP-02-2017-0033&crossref=10.1002%2Fitdj.20023&citationId=p_54

https://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?doi=10.1108%2FITP-02-2017-0033&system=10.1108%2FITP-09-2014-0219&isi=000370546200003&citationId=p_62

https://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?doi=10.1108%2FITP-02-2017-0033&system=10.1108%2F09593841111158356&isi=000295701600002&citationId=p_55

https://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?doi=10.1108%2FITP-02-2017-0033&system=10.1108%2F09593841111158392&isi=000295701600006&citationId=p_47

https://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?doi=10.1108%2FITP-02-2017-0033&crossref=10.1093%2Fjae%2F10.Suppl2.48&isi=000171762700004&citationId=p_48

https://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?doi=10.1108%2FITP-02-2017-0033&crossref=10.1111%2Fj.1540-6520.2009.00342.x&isi=000271781000005&citationId=p_56

https://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?doi=10.1108%2FITP-02-2017-0033&crossref=10.1080%2F02681102.2010.511698&citationId=p_57

https://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?doi=10.1108%2FITP-02-2017-0033&system=10.1108%2F09593841111158365&isi=000295701600003&citationId=p_50

https://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?doi=10.1108%2FITP-02-2017-0033&crossref=10.1093%2Fjae%2F10.Suppl2.109&isi=000171762700006&citationId=p_42

https://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?doi=10.1108%2FITP-02-2017-0033&system=10.1108%2FITP-09-2015-0223&isi=000370546200001&citationId=p_58

https://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?doi=10.1108%2FITP-02-2017-0033&crossref=10.1016%2Fj.jimonfin.2008.08.001&isi=000263393800003&citationId=p_43

https://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?doi=10.1108%2FITP-02-2017-0033&crossref=10.1080%2F15228910802701445&citationId=p_59

https://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?doi=10.1108%2FITP-02-2017-0033&system=10.1108%2F09593841111158383&isi=000295701600005&citationId=p_52

https://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?doi=10.1108%2FITP-02-2017-0033&system=10.1108%2F20400701211265036&citationId=p_44

https://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?doi=10.1108%2FITP-02-2017-0033&crossref=10.1057%2F9781137534453&citationId=p_60

Levendis, J. and Lee, S.H. (2013), “On the endogeneity of telecommunications and economic growth: evidence from Asia”, Information Technology for Development, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 62-85.

Love, I. and Zicchino, L. (2006), “Financial development and dynamic investment behaviour: evidence from panel VAR”, The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance, Vol. 46 No. 2, pp. 190-210.

McCann, M. and Barlow, A. (2015), “Use and measurement of social media for SMEs”, Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 273-287.

Mankiw, N.G., Romer, D. and Weil, D.N. (1992), “A contribution to the empirics of economic growth”, Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 107, May, pp. 407-437.

Mayer-Foulkes, D. (2010), “Divergences and convergences in human development”, UNDP Human Development Research Paper No. 2010/20, Paris.

Mensah, S.N. and Benedict, E. (2010), “Entrepreneurship training and poverty alleviation: empowering the poor in the Eastern Free State of South Africa”, African Journal of Economic and Management Studies, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 138-163.

Mpogole, H., Usanga, H. and Tedre, M. (2008), “Mobile phones and poverty alleviation: a survey study in rural Tanzania”, Proceedings of M4D 2008, Karlstad University, Sweden, pp. 62-72.

Murphy, J. and Carmody, P. (2015), Africa’s Information Revolution: Technical Regimes and Production Networks in South Africa and Tanzania, Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford.

N’da, K.C. (2012), “The cost of doing business in Sub-Saharan Africa bridges Africa”, International Center for Trade and Sustainable Development, Vol. 1 No. 6, available at: www.ictsd.org/ bridges-news/bridges-africa/news/the-cost-of-doing-business-in-subsaharan-africa (accessed August 15, 2014).

Narayan, P.K., Mishra, S. and Narayan, S. (2011), “Do market capitalization and stocks traded converge? New global evidence”, Journal of Banking and Finance, Vol. 35 No. 10, pp. 2771-2781.

Neven, D. and Droge, C.L.M. (2001), “A diamond for the poor? Assessing Porter’s diamond model for the analysis of agro-food clusters in developing countries”, available at: www.agrifood.info/Agrifood/members/Congress/Congress2001Papers/Symposium/Neven.pdf (accessed August 15, 2014).

Oluwatobi, S., Efobi, U.R., Olurinola, O.I. and Alege, P. (2015), “Innovation in Africa: why institutions matter”, South African Journal of Economics, Vol. 83 No. 3, pp. 390-410.

Oseifuah, E.K. (2010), “Financial literacy and youth entrepreurship in South Africa”, African Journal of Economic and Management Studies, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 164-182.

Patrignani, N. and Whitehouse, D. (2015), “Slow tech: bridging computer ethics and business ethics”, Information Technology & People, Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 775-789.

Paul, B., Bhorat, H. and Cheadle, H. (2010), “The cost of ‘doing business and labour regulation’: the case of South Africa”, International Labour Review, Vol. 149 No. 1, pp. 73-91.

Penard, T., Poussing, N., Yebe, G.Z. and Ella, P.N. (2012), “Comparing the determinants of internet and cell phone use in Africa: evidence from Gabon”, Communications & Strategies, Vol. 86, Second Quarter, pp. 65-83.

Petrakis, P.E. and Stamatakis, D. (2002), “Growth and educational levels: a comparative analysis”, Economics of Education Review, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 513-521.

Ponelis, S.R. and Holmner, M.A. (2013a), “ICT in Africa: enabling a better life for all”, Information Technology for Development, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 1-11.

Ponelis, S.R. and Holmner, M.A. (2013b), “ICT in Africa: enabling a better life for all”, Information Technology for Development, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 163-177.

Porter, M.E. (1990), The Competitive Advantage of Nations, Free Press, New York, NY.

297

Openness, ICT and

entrepreneurship

D ow

nl oa

de d

by W

al de

n U

ni ve

rs it

y A

t 19

:0 5

28 D

ec em

be r

20 18

( P

T )

www.ictsd.org/bridges-news/bridges-africa/news/the-cost-of-doing-business-in-subsaharan-africa

www.agrifood.info/Agrifood/members/Congress/Congress2001Papers/Symposium/Neven.pdf

https://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?doi=10.1108%2FITP-02-2017-0033&system=10.1108%2FITP-08-2015-0191&isi=000370546200004&citationId=p_76

https://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?doi=10.1108%2FITP-02-2017-0033&system=10.1108%2F20400701011073464&citationId=p_68

https://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?doi=10.1108%2FITP-02-2017-0033&crossref=10.1111%2Fj.1564-913X.2010.00076.x&isi=000277919400004&citationId=p_77

https://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?doi=10.1108%2FITP-02-2017-0033&crossref=10.1080%2F02681102.2012.694793&isi=000314345500005&citationId=p_63

https://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?doi=10.1108%2FITP-02-2017-0033&crossref=10.1016%2FS0272-7757%2801%2900050-4&citationId=p_79

https://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?doi=10.1108%2FITP-02-2017-0033&crossref=10.1080%2F02681102.2014.985521&isi=000345838100001&citationId=p_80

https://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?doi=10.1108%2FITP-02-2017-0033&crossref=10.1016%2Fj.jbankfin.2011.03.010&isi=000294037800021&citationId=p_72

https://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?doi=10.1108%2FITP-02-2017-0033&crossref=10.1016%2Fj.qref.2005.11.007&citationId=p_64

https://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?doi=10.1108%2FITP-02-2017-0033&crossref=10.1080%2F02681102.2014.985521&isi=000345838100001&citationId=p_80

https://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?doi=10.1108%2FITP-02-2017-0033&isi=000345838100001&citationId=p_81

https://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?doi=10.1108%2FITP-02-2017-0033&system=10.1108%2FJSBED-08-2012-0096&isi=000212276500005&citationId=p_65

https://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?doi=10.1108%2FITP-02-2017-0033&isi=000345838100001&citationId=p_81

https://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?doi=10.1108%2FITP-02-2017-0033&system=10.1108%2FJSBED-08-2012-0096&isi=000212276500005&citationId=p_65

https://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?doi=10.1108%2FITP-02-2017-0033&crossref=10.1007%2F978-1-349-11336-1&citationId=p_82

https://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?doi=10.1108%2FITP-02-2017-0033&crossref=10.1111%2Fsaje.12071&isi=000360834300005&citationId=p_74

https://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?doi=10.1108%2FITP-02-2017-0033&crossref=10.2307%2F2118477&isi=A1992HV37600003&citationId=p_66

https://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?doi=10.1108%2FITP-02-2017-0033&system=10.1108%2F20400701011073473&citationId=p_75

Porter, M.E. (1998), “The Adam Smith address: location, clusters, and the ‘new’ microeconomics of competition”, Business Economics, Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 7-13, available at: www.econ.nyu.edu/dept/ courses/niemira/980107.pdf (accessed November 8, 2014).

Qureshi, S. (2013a), “What is the role of mobile phones in bringing about growth?”, Information Technology for Development, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 1-4.

Qureshi, S. (2013b), “Networks of change, shifting power from institutions to people: how are innovations in the use of information and communication technology transforming development?”, Information Technology for Development, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 97-99.

Qureshi, S. (2013c), “Information and communication technologies in the midst of global change: how do we know when development takes place?”, Information Technology for Development, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 189-192.

Qureshi, S., Kamal, M. and Keen, P. (2009), “Knowledge networking to overcome the digital divide”, in King, W. (Ed.), Knowledge Management and Organizational Learning, Annals of Information Systems, Vol. 4, Springer, Boston, MA, pp. 215-234.

Richardson, H.W. (1969), Regional Economics: Location Theory, Urban Structure, and Regional Change, Chapters 1-5, Praeger Publishers, New York, NY.

Roodman, D. (2009a), “A note on the theme of too many instruments”, Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, Vol. 71 No. 1, pp. 135-158.

Roodman, D. (2009b), “How to do xtabond2: an introduction to difference and system GMM in Stata”, Stata Journal, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 86-136.

Roztocki, N. and Weistroffer, H.R. (2016), “Conceptualizing and researching the adoption of ICT and the impact on socioeconomic development”, Information Technology for Development, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 541-549.

Singh, S., Simpson, R., Mordi, C. and Okafor, C. (2011), “Motivation to become an entrepreneur: a study of Nigerian women’s decisions”, African Journal of Economic and Management Studies, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 202-219.

Smith, A. (1937/1776), “ An inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of nations”, in Canna, E. (Ed.), Modern Library, New York, NY, Max Lerner (introducer) Book 1, pp. 8-21.

Solow, R.M. (1956), “A contribution to the theory of economic growth”, Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 70 No. 1, pp. 65-94.

Spring, A., Rolfe, R. and Odera, L. (2013), “Sub-Saharan Africa business environment report: 2012-13 – business information at a ready glance”, available at: http://warrington.ufl.edu/centers/ciber/ docs/SABER_2012-2013.pdf (accessed August 15, 2014).

Stan, E. and Garnsey, E. (2006), Entrepreneurship and the Knowledge Economy, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, MA.

Stigler, G.J. (1957), Adam Smith: Selections from the “The Wealth of Nations”, Wiley Blackwell, New York, NY.

Swan, T. (1956), “Economic growth and capital accumulation”, Economic Record, Vol. 32 No. 2, pp. 334-361.

Taplin, R. and Snyman, M. (2004), “Doing business in South Africa’s new mining environment: a legal perspective”, CIM Bulletin, Vol. 97 No. 1078, pp. 91-98.

Tapsoba, S.J.-A. (2010), “Trade intensity and business cycle synchronicity in Africa”, African Development Review, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 149-172.

Tatnall, A. (2015), “Computer education and societal change: history of early courses in computing in universities and schools in Victoria”, Information Technology & People, Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 742-757.

Tchamyou, V.S. (2017), “The role of knowledge economy in African business”, Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 1189-1228.

United Nations (2009), “Worlds population prospects”, United Nations.

298

ITP 31,1

D ow

nl oa

de d

by W

al de

n U

ni ve

rs it

y A

t 19

:0 5

28 D

ec em

be r

20 18

( P

T )

www.econ.nyu.edu/dept/courses/niemira/980107.pdf

http://warrington.ufl.edu/centers/ciber/docs/SABER_2012-2013.pdf

https://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?doi=10.1108%2FITP-02-2017-0033&system=10.1108%2F20400701111165641&citationId=p_92

https://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?doi=10.1108%2FITP-02-2017-0033&crossref=10.1080%2F02681102.2013.764597&isi=000314345500001&citationId=p_84

https://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?doi=10.1108%2FITP-02-2017-0033&crossref=10.1080%2F02681102.2013.789151&isi=000317894700001&citationId=p_85

https://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?doi=10.1108%2FITP-02-2017-0033&crossref=10.2307%2F1884513&isi=A1956CGK6100004&citationId=p_94

https://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?doi=10.1108%2FITP-02-2017-0033&crossref=10.1080%2F02681102.2013.818827&isi=000321731100001&citationId=p_86

https://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?doi=10.1108%2FITP-02-2017-0033&crossref=10.1007%2F978-1-4419-0011-1_14&citationId=p_87

https://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?doi=10.1108%2FITP-02-2017-0033&crossref=10.1111%2Fj.1467-8268.2009.00231.x&isi=000275402800007&citationId=p_100

https://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?doi=10.1108%2FITP-02-2017-0033&crossref=10.1111%2Fj.1468-0084.2008.00542.x&isi=000262513100006&citationId=p_89

https://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?doi=10.1108%2FITP-02-2017-0033&system=10.1108%2FITP-09-2014-0202&isi=000370546200002&citationId=p_101

https://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?doi=10.1108%2FITP-02-2017-0033&crossref=10.1177%2F1536867X0900900106&isi=000268680400006&citationId=p_90

https://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?doi=10.1108%2FITP-02-2017-0033&crossref=10.1111%2Fj.1475-4932.1956.tb00434.x&citationId=p_98

https://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?doi=10.1108%2FITP-02-2017-0033&crossref=10.1007%2Fs13132-016-0417-1&isi=000419571100005&citationId=p_102

https://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?doi=10.1108%2FITP-02-2017-0033&crossref=10.1080%2F02681102.2016.1196097&isi=000389241600001&citationId=p_91

https://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?doi=10.1108%2FITP-02-2017-0033&crossref=10.1007%2Fs13132-016-0417-1&isi=000419571100005&citationId=p_102

Venable, J.R., Pries-Heje, J., Bunker, D. and Russo, N.L. (2011), “Design and diffusion of systems for human benefit: toward more humanistic realisation of information systems in society”, Information Technology & People, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 208-216.

Wang, Y. (2016), “Investigating dynamic capabilities of family businesses in China: a social capital perspective”, Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 1057-1080.

Watts, S. and Wyner, G. (2011), “Designing and theorizing the adoption of mobile technology-mediated ethical consumption tools”, Information Technology & People, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 257-280.

World Bank (2013), Doing Business in the East African Community 2013, The World Bank Group, Washington, DC, available at: www.doingbusiness.org/~/media/WBG/DoingBusiness/ Documents/Special-Reports/DB13-EAC.pdf (accessed November 3, 2016).

Corresponding author Simplice A. Asongu can be contacted at: [email protected]

(The Appendix follows overleaf.)

299

Openness, ICT and

entrepreneurship

D ow

nl oa

de d

by W

al de

n U

ni ve

rs it

y A

t 19

:0 5

28 D

ec em

be r

20 18

( P

T )

www.doingbusiness.org/~/media/WBG/DoingBusiness/Documents/Special-Reports/DB13-EAC.pdf

https://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?doi=10.1108%2FITP-02-2017-0033&system=10.1108%2F09593841111158347&isi=000295701600001&citationId=p_104

https://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?doi=10.1108%2FITP-02-2017-0033&system=10.1108%2FJSBED-12-2015-0175&isi=000390759400007&citationId=p_105

https://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?doi=10.1108%2FITP-02-2017-0033&system=10.1108%2F09593841111158374&isi=000295701600004&citationId=p_106

Appendix 1

Variables Signs Definitions of variables (Measurements) Sources

Cost of starting business

Costostart Cost of business start-up procedures (% of GNI per capita)

World Bank (WDI)

Contract enforcement Contractenf Procedures to enforce a contract (number) World Bank (WDI)

Start-up procedure Startupproced Start-up procedures to register a business (number)

World Bank (WDI)

Ware house time Timewarehouse Time required to build a warehouse (days) World Bank (WDI)

Time to enforce a contract

Timenforcontr Timenforcontr: Time required to enforce a contract (days)

World Bank (WDI)

Time to register a property

Timeregprop Time required to register a property (days) World Bank (WDI)

Time to start a business

Timestartbus Time required to start a business (days) World Bank (WDI)

Time to export Timexport Time to export (days) World Bank (WDI)

Time to pay taxes Timetaxes Time to prepare and pay taxes (hours) World Bank (WDI)

Resolving an insolvency

Timeresinsolv Time to resolve insolvency (years) World Bank (WDI)

Trade Openness Trade Imports plus Exports of Commodities (% of GDP) World Bank (WDI)

Foreign investment FDI Foreign Direct Investment inflows (% of GDP) World Bank (WDI)

Mobile phones Mobile Mobile phone subscriptions (per 100 people) World Bank (WDI)

Internet Internet Internet penetration (per 100 people) World Bank (WDI)

GDP growth GDPg Gross domestic product (GDP) growth (annual %)

World Bank (WDI)

Population growth Popg Population growth rate (annual %) World Bank (WDI)

Foreign aid Aid Total Development Assistance (% of GDP) World Bank (WDI)

Educational Quality Educ Pupil-teacher ratio in Primary Education World Bank (WDI)

Note: WDI, World Bank Development Indicators

Table AI. Definitions of variables

300

ITP 31,1

D ow

nl oa

de d

by W

al de

n U

ni ve

rs it

y A

t 19

:0 5

28 D

ec em

be r

20 18

( P

T )

Appendix 2

Mean SD Minimum Maximum Observations

Cost of starting business 156.079 219.820 0.300 1,540.2 445 Contract enforcement 39.305 5.224 23.000 54.000 445 Start-up procedure 9.856 3.005 3.000 18.000 445 Ware house time 195.760 98.496 48.000 599 367 Time to enforce a contract 683.024 277.839 230.000 1,715 445 Time to register a property 82.592 74.197 9.000 389 412 Time to start a business 49.884 43.658 5.000 260 445 Time to export 33.789 14.344 10 78 375 Time to pay taxes 319.382 196.048 66 1,120 375 Resolving an insolvency 3.094 1.129 1.7 6.2 372 Mobile phone penetration 23.379 28.004 0.000 147.202 572 Internet penetration 4.152 6.450 0.005 43.605 566 Trade openness 78.177 36.138 20.964 209.87 597 Foreign direct investment inflows 5.332 8.737 −6.043 91.007 603 GDP growth 4.714 6.322 −47.552 63.379 608 Population growth 2.361 0.948 −1.081 6.576 588 Educational quality 43.601 14.529 12.466 100.236 444 Foreign aid 11.687 14.193 −0.253 181.187 606 Note: SD, standard deviation

Table AII. Summary statistics

(2000-2012)

301

Openness, ICT and

entrepreneurship

D ow

nl oa

de d

by W

al de

n U

ni ve

rs it

y A

t 19

:0 5

28 D

ec em

be r

20 18

( P

T )

Appendix 3

In te rn et

M ob ile

A id

E du

c P op g

G D P g

F D I

T ra de

T im

er es in so lv

C os to st ar t

− 0. 38 5

− 0. 54 1

0. 13 3

0. 36 2

0. 38 9

0. 02 0

− 0. 13 5

− 0. 04 8

0. 39 0

C on tr ac te nf

− 0. 09 3

− 0. 32 4

0. 04 9

0. 09 4

0. 14 4

− 0. 02 2

0. 14 9

0. 03 6

0. 27 6

St ar tu pp

ro ce d

− 0. 16 4

− 0. 27 5

− 0. 13 6

0. 15 4

0. 10 0

0. 10 9

− 0. 12 8

0. 02 4

0. 17 0

T im

ew ar eh ou se

− 0. 12 1

0. 08 6

0. 12 5

− 0. 00 3

− 0. 09 3

− 0. 11 3

− 0. 05 9

0. 11 9

0. 08 7

T im

en fo rc on tr

0. 09 8

0. 04 7

0. 20 9

− 0. 28 5

− 0. 21 2

− 0. 03 4

0. 18 4

0. 17 2

0. 04 8

T im

er eg pr op

− 0. 05 6

− 0. 19 3

0. 04 0

0. 08 7

0. 03 9

0. 00 4

− 0. 17 9

− 0. 06 7

− 0. 01 5

T im

es ta rt bu

s 0. 04 6

0. 04 3

− 0. 09 3

− 0. 14 9

− 0. 26 3

− 0. 04 9

0. 23 6

0. 26 5

0. 16 5

T im

ex po rt

− 0. 47 6

− 0. 55 4

0. 03 1

0. 58 9

0. 32 7

0. 18 1

− 0. 06 3

− 0. 14 6

0. 38 6

T im

et ax es

− 0. 16 1

− 0. 14 1

− 0. 16 4

0. 18 7

0. 10 3

− 0. 09 0

0. 02 7

0. 01 0

0. 16 7

T im

er es in so lv

− 0. 26 1

− 0. 43 5

0. 22 1

0. 40 8

0. 31 6

− 0. 00 4

− 0. 02 6

− 0. 21 5

1. 00 0

T ra de

0. 18 2

0. 24 3

− 0. 06 1

− 0. 34 8

− 0. 32 5

0. 09 3

0. 33 8

1. 00 0

F D I

0. 06 7

0. 06 3

0. 34 2

− 0. 13 5

0. 11 6

0. 06 5

1. 00 0

G D P g

− 0. 04 9

− 0. 24 7

0. 26 0

0. 21 3

0. 25 2

1. 00 0

P op g

− 0. 43 1

− 0. 45 8

0. 49 7

0. 36 0

1. 00 0

E du

c − 0. 52 6

− 0. 57 1

0. 12 0

1. 00 0

A id

− 0. 20 7

− 0. 25 9

1. 00 0

M ob ile

0. 66 1

1. 00 0

In te rn et

1. 00 0

T im

et ax es

T im

ex po rt

T im

es ta rt bu

s T im

er eg pr op

T im

en fo rc on tr

T im

ew ar eh ou se

St ar t- up

pr oc ed

C on tr ac te nf

C os to st ar t

0. 24 1

0. 46 3

− 0. 03 2

0. 16 9

− 0. 11 0

0. 12 0

0. 30 3

0. 26 8

1. 00 0

C on tr ac te nf

0. 34 5

0. 21 6

0. 02 8

− 0. 04 0

0. 08 0

0. 02 5

0. 18 0

1. 00 0

St ar tu pp

ro ce d

0. 12 9

0. 20 4

0. 31 1

− 0. 09 3

− 0. 06 5

− 0. 03 7

1. 00 0

T im

ew ar eh ou se

− 0. 02 2

0. 01 2

0. 09 4

0. 22 1

0. 15 0

1. 00 0

T im

en fo rc on tr

− 0. 06 0

− 0. 19 7

0. 34 4

− 0. 21 3

1. 00 0

T im

er eg pr op

− 0. 00 9

− 0. 05 4

− 0. 12 9

1. 00 0

T im

es ta rt bu

s 0. 15 8

− 0. 01 1

1. 00 0

T im

ex po rt

0. 21 2

1. 00 0

T im

et ax es

1. 00 0

T im

er es in so lv

T ra de

F D I

G D P g

P op g

E du

c A id

M ob ile

In te rn et

N o te s:

C os to st ar t: co st

of bu

si ne ss

st ar t- up

pr oc ed ur e;

C on tr ac te nf : pr oc ed ur e to

en fo rc e a co nt ra ct ; St ar tu pp

ro ce d:

st ar t- up

pr oc ed ur es

to re gi st er

a bu

si ne ss ;

T im

ew ar eh ou se :t im

e re qu

ir ed

to bu

ild a w ar eh ou se ;T

im en fo rc on tr :t im

e re qu

ir ed

to en fo rc e a co nt ra ct ;T

im er eg ro up

:t im

e re qu

ir ed

to re gi st er a pr op er ty ;T

im es ta rt bu

s: ti m e re qu

ir ed

to st ar t a bu

si ne ss ; T im

ex po rt : ti m e to

ex po rt ; T im

et ax es : ti m e to

pr ep ar e an d pa y ta xe s; T im

er es in so lv : ti m e to

re so lv e in so lv en cy ; E du

c: qu

al it y of

pr im

ar y ed uc at io n;

G D P g:

G D P gr ow

th ;P

op g:

po pu

la ti on

gr ow

th ;F

D I: fo re ig n di re ct

in ve st m en t in fl ow

s; A id :f or ei gn

ai d;

M ob ile :m

ob ile

ph on e pe ne tr at io n

Table AIII. Correlation matrix

302

ITP 31,1

D ow

nl oa

de d

by W

al de

n U

ni ve

rs it

y A

t 19

:0 5

28 D

ec em

be r

20 18

( P

T )

Appendix 4

C os to st ar t C on tr ac te nf

St ar t- up

pr oc ed

T im

ew ar eh ou se

T im

en fo rc on tr

T im

er eg pr op

T im

es ta rt bu

s T im

ex po rt

T im

et ax es

T im

er es in so lv

C os to st ar t (− 1)

0. 92 84

C on tr ac te nf

(− 1)

0. 99 70

St ar tu pp

ro ce d (− 1)

0. 94 00

T im

ew ar eh ou se

(− 1)

0. 96 40

T im

en fo rc on tr (− 1)

0. 98 83

T im

er eg pr op

(− 1)

0. 91 87

T im

es ta rt bu

s (− 1)

0. 92 63

T im

ex po rt (− 1)

0. 97 67

T im

et ax es

(− 1)

0. 99 23

T im

er es in so lv

(− 1)

0. 99 97

N o te s:

C os to st ar t: co st of

bu si ne ss

st ar t- up

pr oc ed ur e; C os to st ar t (− 1) :l ag ge d co st of

bu si ne ss

st ar t- up

pr oc ed ur e; C on tr ac te nf :p ro ce du

re to

en fo rc e a co nt ra ct ;

St ar tu pp

ro ce d: st ar t- up

pr oc ed ur es

to re gi st er a bu

si ne ss ;T

im ew

ar eh ou se :t im

e re qu

ir ed

to bu

ild a w ar eh ou se ;T

im en fo rc on tr :t im

e re qu

ir ed

to en fo rc e a co nt ra ct ;

T im

er eg ro up

:t im

e re qu

ir ed

to re gi st er a pr op er ty ;T

im es ta rt bu

s: ti m e re qu

ir ed

to st ar t a bu

si ne ss ;T

im ex po rt :t im

e to ex po rt ;T

im et ax es :t im

e to pr ep ar e an d pa y

ta xe s; T im

er es in so lv :t im

e to

re so lv e in so lv en cy

Table AIV. Persistence in doing business variables

303

Openness, ICT and

entrepreneurship

D ow

nl oa

de d

by W

al de

n U

ni ve

rs it

y A

t 19

:0 5

28 D

ec em

be r

20 18

( P

T )

Outline placeholder

Appendix 1
Appendix 2
Appendix 3
Appendix 4