A Critical Discourse of EI and CA in Emerging Economies: The Place of Nigeria Within the Global Innovation Ecosystems

Abstract

This study explores the levels of and barriers to entrepreneurial innovation (EI) and competitive advantage (CA) in emerging economies, and situates the findings within the Nigeria’s global innovation ecosystems. A qualitative research approach is preferred relying on the secondary data extracted from the reports of Global Competitiveness Index (GCI) and enriched by scholarly works including insights from the reports of Global Entrepreneurship Index (GEI). The extracted data from the afore-mentioned sources were critically reviewed and analysed using content analysis to understand the connection between EI and CA. At the end of the analysis, the study found that for 10 years (2008–2017), Nigeria manifested low EI and CA on the GCI ranking, whereas other African countries such as Ghana, Cameroon and South Africa, with lesser economic resources, did comparatively better. Second, it was found that, the key barriers to EI and CA are infrastructural neglect, lack of strong regulatory institutions, weak macroeconomic environment, weak technological readiness, poor business sophistication and low innovation among others. The study improves understanding of theoretical, managerial and policy implications of EI and CA. It also provides appropriate strategic suggestions for stimulating EI and enhancing CA at both national and industry levels in Nigeria. The study contributes to the raging debates on EI and CA in emerging economies. It also supports the Schumpeter’s creative discovery theory and resource-based view of CA.

Keywords

Competitive advantage ecosystems entrepreneurship innovation Nigeria

Introduction

The quest for economic growth and attainment of global competitive advantage (CA) propelled forward-looking nations to formulate policies, and therefrom launch disruptive programmes to stimulate entrepreneurial innovation (EI) at local, regional and national levels (Autio, Kenney, Mustar, Siegel, & Wright, 2014; Baumol, 2002; Grimaldi, Kenney, Siegel, & Wright, 2011). Some of the disruptive programmes launched in different climes to stimulate EI include technology-based incubators/accelerators, the United States’ Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) and Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR), Britain’s Science Enterprise Challenge, France’s Law on Innovation and Research to Promote the Creation of Innovative Technology Companies, EU’s European Knowledge Transfer Association and other nations created a set of formal institutions called entrepreneurial support networks or government support agencies that provide business development services to entrepreneurial firms at different phases of formation and growth (Autio et al., 2014; Kenney & Patton, 2005; Mustar & Wright, 2010; Raimi, Shokunbi, & Peluola, 2010).

In support of the foregoing, literatures and practical realities across the globe point to the fact that EI stimulates CA in the global market domain because innovative products, services, technologies and processes most often have CA and wider acceptability over less innovative ones. Looking at Nigeria and its diverse resources within the global knowledge economy, it is obvious that the public and private sectors have really not embraced different forms of innovations for greater competitiveness when compared with the developed countries (Radwan & Pellegrini, 2010). Although there are some exceptions in the country, where EI has been systematically applied and exploited to gain some degree of CA. One of such is the Nigerian Nollywood film industry. The phenomenal success recorded by the Nollywood industry leveraging traditional innovations within its capacity has proven that EI that gave developed countries CA cannot be exclusively used as standard metrics for emerging economies because innovation is not a monolithic term rather it is a process that is flexible, context-specific, country-specific and largely dependent on time and space (Autio et al., 2014; Parrilli & Heras, 2016). It is instructive to state that entrepreneurial activities seen to be innovative in developing contexts may not be innovative in developed contexts. Even, the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM) survey reported that many new entrepreneurial ventures are not innovative at all. Specifically, the survey indicated that across 80 countries investigated, on an average, only less than 30 per cent of the new ventures reported that their products were innovative across countries (Autio et al., 2014).

For the emerging economies to gain CA, there is a need for innovation diffusion, dissemination and implementation at both national and industry levels (Greenhalgh, Robert, Macfarlane, Bate, & Kyriakidou, 2004). Particularly, Nigeria has an ambitious vision of emerging as one of the top 20 economies in the world by 2020. To actualise this vision, it is necessary to leverage knowledge, productivity and innovation for sustainable competitiveness within the powerhouse of the 21st century (Radwan & Pellegrini, 2010).

From the foregoing, EI is a requisite for CA. When innovation is linked with entrepreneurship, it systematically leads to new technology adoption as businesses and service providers would compete to catch up with one another by deploying state-of-the-art facilities and technologies for sustainable growth and development (De Mel, McKenzie, & Woodruff, 2009). Scholars discussed the economic and technological contributions of innovation to national development (Longenecker et al., 2006; Wong, Ho, & Autio, 2005). Specifically, Wolf (2006) explained that improvement in the entrepreneurial productivity of small and medium enterprises (SMEs) is strongly connected with their propensity to innovate, adopt new technologies and adapt innovative process to local conditions. Therefore, innovation is required by entrepreneurs to gain CA in the contemporary changing business environment. Viewed from cause-effect relationship, the birth of entrepreneurship emerged when innovated products, services, processes and technologies are fully developed and commercialised within the market domain. While, innovation involves the implementation of creative ideas and novelties arising from the ideation phase (Zhou & Shalley, 2011), entrepreneurship, on the other hand, is the application of creative and innovative ideas to new business ventures; it extends to the creation of new markets, new products and services, and new firms (Eckhardt & Shane, 2003).

Within the Schumpeterian creative destruction theory, innovation connotes creating new sources of CA within the market domain, by substituting, improving, renewing and fabricating new products, services and processes, thereby leveraging entrepreneurial opportunities (Nițu-Antonie, Feder, & Munteanu, 2017). The implication of the foregoing is that EI is important for corporate survival in the business world, where there is intense competition among producers and service providers. The slogans in the competitive marketplaces in Britain and the United States is ‘Innovate or Die’ (Costa, 2014). Theorists and analysts have written extensively on innovation and technology adoption in the developed context but studies on innovation in the developing context are few. Also, in-depth attention has not been given to investigating factors influencing innovation at both national and industry levels as well as the barriers against innovation in developing countries in Africa (Jegede, Ilori, Sonibare, Oluwale, & Siyanbola, 2012). This study builds on the skewed previous studies on innovation in the context of developing countries (Jegede et al., 2012; Radwan & Pellegrini, 2010; Williams & Woodson, 2012). The consistent low ranking of Nigeria on the GCI for a number of years provides another need for this study.

Apart from the introduction, this exploratory study has four other parts. The second part focuses on literature review and theoretical framework on EI and CA. It extends to the critique of Schumpeter’s creative discovery theory and resource-based view (RBV) in connection with the exploit of the Nigerian Nollywood film industry. The key barriers to EI and CA are also discussed. The third part discusses the research methodology, particularly the justifications for adopting a qualitative research method for the exploratory study. The fourth part explicates the results/findings of the study and discussions. The final part of the article concludes with summary of findings, research implications and suggestions.

Research Questions and Theory Building

From the foregoing introduction, this exploratory study examines the following two research questions (RQs):

RQ1: What are the levels of EI and CA in Nigeria?

RQ2: What are the key barriers to EI and CA in Nigeria?

The above RQs are suitable for an exploratory study in an emerging developing context like Nigeria. Besides, this study does not intend to test hypotheses or propositions rather it attempts to understand Nigeria’s levels of EI and competitiveness. The outcomes of the study would obviously enrich existing body of knowledge and theories in both fields.

Literature Review and Theoretical Framework

Entrepreneurial Innovation

Entrepreneurship is the application of creative and innovative ideas to new business ventures; it extends to the creation of new markets, new products and services, and new firms (Eckhardt & Shane, 2003). Innovation, on the other hand, is a precursor to entrepreneurship because products, services, processes and technologies systematically emerge from innovative thinking and thoughts. The birth of entrepreneurship is said to have emerged when innovated products, services and processes are commercialised within established market domain. Discussion on innovation has gained prominence in academic and policy circles in recent times for a number of reasons: (a) the innovative firms are interested in innovation because it is akin to being competitive as well as being able to deliver new products, improved services and enhanced processes to meet changing tastes and preferences in the market domain, (b) the consultants seek contracts by persuading companies to adopt new innovation models for sustainability of their operations, (c) the policymakers/politicians embrace innovation to help in the design of innovative policies which impinge positively on their popularity and credibility and (d) the international organisations are interested in innovation for continental superiority judging by the creation of several research institutions and centres teaching and conducting research in various innovations (Christensen & Raynor, 2003; Fagerberg, 2004; Fagerberg & Verspagen, 2009).

Conceptually, innovation is the structured implementation of creative ideas and novelties arising from the ideation phase (Zhou & Shalley, 2011). Besides, McAdam, McConvery, and Armstrong (2004) described innovation as harnessing resources available for the purpose of coping with constant changes in the business environment. Kinicki and Williams (2010) viewed innovation as finding novel ways and means of delivering new, improved, better goods or services to the people and society. When innovation is amplified as EI, it extends to the creation by corporate enterprises or something new in the marketplace that alters the prevailing supply–demand equation for goods, services and processes.

Innovation is therefore the key to survival in the contemporary business world, where intense competition dominates the global business environment. Therefore, all novel industrial activities that businesses adopt for competitiveness in the marketplace are considered as innovations. Whereas, Goswami and Mathew (2005) understood innovation as effort which manifests in the forms of inventing a new object, idea generation, improvement on existing item, spreading new ideas, and adoption of something new but tested elsewhere, doing something in a new way, making a change, attracting innovative personnel into the organisation and examining things from new perspectives. Embedded in the various definitions above is the categorisation of innovation into technological and organisational innovations. The technological innovation focuses on application of state-of-the-art technology for reinventing and reshaping new product or process of production, while the organisational innovation is strictly concerned with new administrative or marketing techniques as well as improved internal and external relations. Furthermore, the technological innovation is linked to science-based high-tech companies across the globe, and the organisational innovation is common with low-tech market-niche companies that offer range of products and services (Aubert, 2005; Tang & Le, 2007).

From a different perspective, EI can be triggered in the economy at large or at workplaces in several ways, namely bottlenecks in the production lines, changes in technology, competitive conditions in the economy, international rules or domestic regulations propelled by globalisation, environmental or health crises in workplaces and planned/unplanned wars (Dosi, 1988; Jegede et al., 2012).

On the classification of the determinants of innovation, Jegede et al. (2012) identified technological and non-technological factors as determinants of innovation and competitiveness in Nigeria. Technological factors include educational qualifications, training and prior work experience of the heads of technical department, number of R&D staff and training, innovation and R&D investment. The non-technological factors included interaction with competitors, consumers, suppliers and training institution.

With regards to typologies, Kuratko and Hodgetts (2004, 2007) identified four basic types of innovation, namely invention, extension, duplication and synthesis. Invention is process of creating new product, service or process. Extension relates to innovation that incorporates a new application of existing product, service or process. Duplication is a creative replication of existing product, service and process; and synthesis is a type of innovation that relates to combination of existing concept and factors into a new formulation. The OECD’s Oslo Manual identified product, process, marketing and organisational innovations as the four classification types (Camisón & Villar-López, 2014). Other scholars posited that process, product and management innovations are the three typologies in the business environment (Madrid-Guijarro, Garcia, & Van Auken, 2009). Moreover, all previous scholarly works on EI were anchored on innovation theories.

Therefore, the theory that underpins EI in this article is Schumpeter’s creative discovery theory. The creative discovery theory, which originated from Joseph Schumpeter in 1954 underscores the fact that technological advancement through dynamic innovations, new products, new processes, new technology, new markets and new firms stimulate economic growth (Diamond, 2006). The creative destruction theory provided explanations for improved industry-level performance, increased economic growth rates, strong financial system development, higher per capita GDPs, accounting standards and property right protection (Chun, Kim, Morck, & Yeung, 2008)

Competitiveness and Competitive Advantage

Globalisation has made CA a front-burner issue in the academic and professional circles. The developed and emerging economies systematically compete with one another at the level of international trade to gain competitiveness. Competitiveness has for long occupied the attention of scholars, practitioners and international institutions (Porter, 1990; Porter, 2001; Woodruff, 1997; World Economic Forum, 2014, 2017). Discussion of CA is often discussed at two levels—national and industry. According to Onyemenam (2004), competitiveness occurs at two basic levels—national and industry levels of competitiveness. National level competitiveness is understood as a situation where a nation has in place sound economic policies that propel private sector as engine of growth within a free market system supported with strong institutions, infrastructure and technological progress. Industry-level competitiveness however concentrates on the capacity of businesses to operate profitably while growly on a sustainable basis.

To the World Economic Forum (2016b), competitiveness at the national-level context refers to set of institutions, policies and factors that determine the level of productivity of a country. The level of productivity subsequently attained by the country determines the degree of economic prosperity and rates of return from investments, which are the fundamental drivers of growth rates in the economy. Porter (2001) asserted that a nation does not become competitive because of its abundant natural resources, labour pool, interest rate, the value of its currency as often advocated by classical economists—rather a nation’s competitiveness is tied to the capacity of its industry to innovate and upgrade its methods, processes and technologies to meet the taste and preferences in the market. Woodruff (1997) had long shared the same view, that for organisations to survive, they need to search for new ways to achieve their corporate goals to retain CA within a constantly changing business environment. CA at both national and firm-level presupposes access to certain resources—this is the hallmark of RBV (Barney, 2001).

Scholars explained that the RBV, which originated in the 1970s from Jeffrey Pfeffer and Gerald R. Salancik, is premised on the idea that resources are critical to an organisation’s success and that timely access and sustainable control over resources is the foundational and rational justification for why some businesses consistently outperform others, that is, enjoy CA (Barney, 2001; Hillman, Withers, & Collins, 2009). By extension, if countries and strategic firms must maintain CA over their competitors, they must acquire ‘the resources and capabilities needed to conceive of and implement strategies in imperfectly competitive strategic factor market’ (Barney, 2001, p. 646).

Therefore, RBV is a rational argument for exploiting opportunities better than others to create and nurture new businesses in developing markets (Baliamoune-Lutz, 2007; Raimi et al., 2016). In other words, if business enterprises must forge and maintain CAs over their competitors in the operating business environment, they must acquire ‘the resources and capabilities needed to conceive of and implement strategies in imperfectly competitive strategic market’ (Barney, 2001, p. 646). Scholars prescribed five options to firms seeking to sustain their power and minimise resource dependences in their quest to remain in business. These options are: (a) mergers or vertical integration, (b) joint ventures and other inter-organisational relationships, (c) forming a board of directors, (d) political action and/or (e) executive succession (Barney, 2001; Hillman et al., 2009).

From the foregoing discussion, RBV when applied to the Nigerian socio-economic and cultural contexts, presupposes that local entrepreneurs require access to massive resources, competence and dynamic capability to gain immediate and/or long-term CA (Raimi & Aslani, 2019). For entrepreneurs operating in the developing context to maintain their relevance in the formal sector, they must acquire ‘the resources and capabilities needed to conceive of and implement strategies in imperfectly competitive strategic market’ (Barney, 2001, p. 646) because these resources and capabilities are critical to entrepreneurial growth and sustainable development. Proponents of RBV identified tangible and intangible resources as sine qua non to CA (Barney & Hesterly, 2006; Knott, 2009). Tangible resources are physical assets at the beckon of organisations such as machines and state-of-the-art equipment but the intangible resources include knowledge, skills, capabilities/competencies, human assets, information, relational and reputational assets (Hill, Jones, Galvin, & Haidar, 2007). Both tangible and intangible resources must be well integrated for optimal performance but oftentimes the intangible resources give unique character to the entrepreneurs and consequently creates CA. There is a distinction between static and sustainable CAs. For resources to offer a long-term CA or what is otherwise called sustainable CA, they must have four unique attributes: (a) they are valuable, (b) they are rare, (c) they are imperfectly imitable and (d) they are non-substitutable (Barney, 1991, 1995; Lockett, Thompson, & Morgenstern, 2009). It is widely-believed that entrepreneurs in developed countries maintained CAs over their counterparts in a developing context because of unhindered access to tangible and intangible resources. This argument is not completely factual because in the developed countries, ethnic entrepreneurs of different nationalities thrive both in formal and informal economies despite all odds.

For instance, it is reported that ethnic entrepreneurs contribute economically to the process of urban renewal and revitalisation of neighbourhoods in developed countries by reviving resuscitation of industries and businesses abandoned by indigenous and foreign entrepreneurs thereby assisting in giving a new lease of life to their host communities. They were able to achieve these feats through specific skills, knowledge and social capital that gave them a comparative advantage (Raimi & Aslani, 2019; Rath, 2002; Waldinger, 1986). Specific examples abound in the literatures. In the garment industry, it is reported by Rath (2010) that ethnic entrepreneurs have succeeded in developed clime because they applied production techniques and skills that are no longer being used in developed economies but which are still valued by a number of people and groups in their host countries. In the Nigerian movie industry despite the absence of innovation, capital, capabilities and several other odds against local entrepreneurs and artists, they maintain CA.

Critique of Schumpeter’s Creative Discovery and RBV

In this section, an attempt is made to critique Schumpeter’s creative discovery theory and RBV with a view to either confirm or refute these theories when viewed in connection with the Nigerian Nollywood film industry. In retrospect, the Schumpeter’s creative discovery theory posits that technological advancement through dynamic innovations, new products, new processes, new technology, new markets and new firms stimulate economic growth (Diamond, 2006), while the RBV states that access to massive resources, competence and dynamic capability are inevitable to gain immediate and/or long-term CA (Raimi & Aslani, 2019). In other words, entrepreneurs operating in any context must acquire ‘the resources and capabilities needed to conceive of and implement strategies in imperfectly competitive strategic market’ (Barney, 2001, p. 646) because resources and capabilities are critical to entrepreneurial growth and development. How relevant are these two propositions when view in connecting with the experiences of Nigeria’s Nollywood film industry?

The Nollywood film industry emerged in the 1990s in response to basic economics of survival in the face of the difficulties inflicted by the structural adjustment programme (SAP) in Nigeria (Ezeonu, 2013). For decades, the theatre, cinema houses and film production outlets had well-established presence with impressive performance and growing revenues in Nigeria but the SAP changed the fortune of the industry and other segments of the society leading to massive loss of jobs, closure of cinema houses due to poor patronage, downturn in marketing of foreign films, placement of embargo on foreign products that can be produced locally by Nigerian entrepreneurs, worsening living condition, drop in the living standards of small income earners, upsurge in crime, hopelessness, escalated cases of industrial actions (strikes and lockouts), upsurge in migration to developed nations otherwise called brain-drain, survival by hook or by crook, devaluation of the local currency to boosts exports, inflation, deepening of unofficial trade across Africa’s borders, removal of subsidies on public goods (education and healthcare), abject poverty and social insecurity (Ezeonu, 2013; Meagher, 2003; Raimi et al., 2014). In coping with the harsh economic conditions imposed by the SAP, a number of innovative entrepreneurs selling foreign movies mooted the idea of recording indigenous movies (home videos) in a bid to circumvent a potential business loss in the film industry. The idea paid-off with the successful release of several home videos (Ezeonu, 2013; Jedlowski, 2013). The creative and innovative introduction of home videos into the Nigerian Film industry at the peak of an economic downturn is supported by the Schumpeter’s creative discovery theory. Creative discovery was demonstrated when the local producers and marketers of films advanced the film industry technologically in the 1990s through production of home videos to replace banned foreign films; and they switched from VHS technology as time progresses to VCD/DVD technology using new local contents, simple processes, affordable technology and creating new markets in Nigeria and across Sub-Saharan Africa—an innovative strategy that stimulated economic growth in the Nigeria film industry.

Furthermore, the RBV, which emphasises firm’s competitiveness is also relevant to Nigeria’s Nollywood industry. As discussed above, Nollywood has continued to flourish in spite of the CA of America’s ‘Hollywood’ and India’s ‘Bollywood’ in the global movie industry because Nigerian film entrepreneurs decided to reinvent an innovative and a flourishing style of film production and distribution that is flexible, cheap and appealing to the customers in Nigeria and across Africa (Ezeonu, 2013; Jedlowski, 2013). A number of studies noted that Nigeria’s Nollywood film industry is the third globally ranked movie industry producing an average of 2,000 movies annually (Evuleocha, 2008; Madichie, 2010). Besides, other scholars reported that Nollywood industry produces the second largest number of titles globally, and that in spite of the fact that it has less CA in the ‘global North’; it maintained very high CA in Sub-Saharan Africa including the global African diaspora. Consequently, it has eclipsed Hollywood and Bollywood across countries in Sub-Saharan African because its home videos dominate in the markets and they are widely featured on local screens (Jedlowski, 2013; Miller, 2012; Ondego, 2008; The Economist, 2010).

A salient question in this discourse is: How has the Nollywood industry been able to innovate, both technologically and structurally to enjoy CA in spite of all odds?

Facts and insights extracted from the critical review of literatures (see Evuleocha, 2008; Ezeonu, 2013; Jedlowski, 2013; Madichie, 2010; Miller, 2012; Ondego, 2008) indicated that unlike Hollywood and Bollywood films, Nigeria’s Nollywood has been able to innovate effectively, both technologically and structurally to gain CA in the following ways:

Nollywood strategically replaced the expensive culture of going out to watch movie in cinema houses in the cities with home video—a more convenient, cheaper and people-friendly culture of watching movie without leaving the comfort of one’s family’s compound or the local neighbourhood.

Nollywood movies are not made for big screen in theatres or busiest cinema houses in cities, although some of their videos appear on terrestrial and satellite television including small screen venues in villages and cities.

Nollywood industry avoided the luxurious, costly and grandiose production approach of global film industry, rather it thrives on velocity, low cost of production and informality with regards to recruitment, financing, marketing and distribution. The turn-around time for a movie is fast—an average of 10 movie scenes are shot within a day and maximum of two weeks for shooting a full movie.

The movies are produced and sold to cross-section of the population in Nigeria and communities across Sub-Saharan Africa that are generally left out of dominant global Hollywood’s distribution plans. The Nollywood movies are sold as VCDs, DVDs and online downloadable materials.

For sustainable patronage, the Nollywood movies in VCDs and DVDs are often serialised consisting of Parts I, II and III, the purchase of each series is not necessarily linked to other series.

The movies are long enough and also appealing to the buyers and other end-users because they are of at least three hours in length (value for money spent).

Nollywood film industry has the dynamic ability to change its strategies and distribution networks in the face of piracy and other environmental challenges that pose threat to its business sustainability.

The takeaway from the above critique of theories vis-à-vis the exploits of the Nigerian Nollywood film industry is that the types of innovations in the developed countries that gave their enterprises CA cannot be used as metrics for judging emerging developing economies. Innovation is not a monolithic term rather it is a concept that is flexible, context-specific, country-specific and largely dependent on time and space (Autio et al., 2014; Parrilli & Heras, 2016). It is therefore instructive to mention that what is deemed to be innovative in a developing nation may not be innovative in the developed nation and vice versa. The Nollywood film industry in Nigeria emerged in response to the harsh economic situation imposed by the SAP, and the industry’s phenomenal growth provides a good case study that entrepreneurship and innovations must not necessarily follow a one-hat-fits-all approach often prescribed in Western literatures and which is largely the metrics used in most global entrepreneurship measurement including the GCI.

Emerging Conceptual Framework of EI and CA

The relationship between entrepreneurship (E) and innovation is both historical and contextual (see Autio et al., 2014; Drucker, 2014; Garud, Gehman, & Giuliani, 2014). Baumol (2002) had long posited that EI represents true source of national CA, while Drucker (2014) noted that innovation is a specific tool and means of entrepreneurs for exploiting change (as an opportunity) in different business contexts. However, Teece (2012, p. 1398) stated that entrepreneurship is functionally about ‘sensing and understanding opportunities, getting things started’ (entrepreneurship aspect) and extends to ‘finding new and better ways of putting things together’ (innovation aspect). It is about creatively coordinating the assembly of disparate and usually cospecialised elements.

At the industry-level analysis, previous studies found that innovation serves as a catalyst for improving competitive positioning/comparative advantages, value-creating innovation and transformation of markets in developed countries context (Covin & Miles, 1999; Lumpkin & Dess, 1996; Rasmussen, 2010). Also at the national-level analysis, EI is systematically linked with CA. This fact is visible in global ranking indexes of the GCI, the National Expert Survey (NES) and the GEI. For instance, the 12 pillars of GCI designed to measure the level of competitiveness of selected nations have long been identified and discussed in a number of empirical studies. Similarly, the NES developed by the GEM measures factors influencing entrepreneurial activity and economic development on a country-to-country basis (Raimi, 2015). The NES has nine dimensions called Entrepreneurial Framework Conditions (EFCs). Furthermore, the GEI developed by the Global Entrepreneurship and Development Institute (GEDI) measures qualitatively and quantitatively the degree of entrepreneurial activity on a country-to-country basis. The three entrepreneurial sub-indexes of GEI have 16 indicators divided into: (a) entrepreneurial attitudes of 5 indicators, (b) entrepreneurial activities of 5 indicators and (c) entrepreneurial aspirations of 6 indicators (Acs & Szerb, 2010; GEDI, 2018; Raimi, 2015).

Zahra and Wright (2011) examined the role of context in stimulating EI of different types of ventures and their impacts on performance. Another study that examined the impact of knowledge, business and financing systems on innovative outputs among networks of 138 innovative start-ups in Belgium (Flanders) found that disconnections between knowledge, business and financial systems have negative impact on the innovative output and survival of entrepreneurially innovative firms. In other words, knowledge, business and financial systems support EI and sustainable CA.

Figure 1.

Source: The framework was developed by the authors based on insights from literature.

Table 1.

External and Internal Barriers to Innovation

External Barriers		Internal Barriers
Sources	Examples	Sources	Examples
Market	Financial, short-termism, market failure, market risk, etc.	People	Fear, lack of will, creativity, etc.
Government	Policies, regulations, standards, institutions, etc.	Structure	Power centralisation, poor reward/incentive systems, etc.
Others	Technical, societal, inter-organisational, etc.	Strategy	Unclear goals, poor marketing, service and legal skills, etc.

Source: Hadjimanolis (2003).

From the foregoing literature review, the conceptual framework that explains the relationship between EI and CA, as well as the connections with environment and economic outcomes is clearly illustrated in Figure 1. The environment consists of political, economic, socio-cultural, technological, ecological and legal factors. The framework reinvents EI and environment as the drivers of CA and subsequently explains how CA stimulates positive economic outcomes in terms of economic growth, FDI, economic development and good ranking in the economy.

Key Barriers of Innovation and Competitiveness

There are a number of internal and external barriers that inhibit nations and organisations from embracing, adopting and adapting innovation in their production processes and in the delivery of services. Reliable studies established that internal and external barriers have for a long time stifle competitiveness in emerging economies including Nigeria. In the service sector in Mexico, the cost of innovation is a key barrier, as firms that have invested in innovation are reluctant to get the outputs of innovation commercialised because customers do not value improvements or changes made to services; they are unwilling to pay higher prices for innovated services. Consequently, most businesses that find themselves in this situation significantly reduce efforts dissipated into services innovation (Maldonado-Guzmán, Marín-Aguilar, & Pinzón-Castro, 2017).

In the United Kingdom, D’Este , Iammarino, Savona, and von Tunzelmann (2012) identified 11 key barriers to innovation adoption. These barriers have been classified into four broad factors namely: cost, knowledge, market and regulation factors. Cost factors include excessive perceived economic risks, direct innovation costs too high, cost of finance and availability of finance knowledge. Knowledge factors comprise lack of qualified personnel and information on new technology and market. Market factors incorporate market domination by established enterprises and uncertainty in the demand for innovative goods/services. Regulation factors include need to meet the UK government regulations and EU regulations. An earlier study by Hadjimanolis (2003) classified barriers to innovation into internal and external barriers as shown in Table 1.

With specific reference to Nigeria, the barriers hampering innovation adoption at the national and industry levels include inadequate funding of R&D. Resources appropriated for R&D expenditures in developing countries including Nigeria largely depends on organisation’s orientation about innovation otherwise called firm’s innovation strategy. Firms with positive innovation strategy appropriate huge budget for R&D, while those with negative innovation strategy do not give importance to R&D expenditures (Jegede et al., 2012).

Furthermore, other barriers to competitiveness in Nigeria are visible in the 12 pillars of the GCI used annually to determine national-level and industry-level competitiveness. Nigeria has consistently been ranked very low of the GCI, thus suggesting there are several barriers to competitiveness including innovation. The 12 pillars of competitiveness on which Nigeria has been poorly rated are: (a) well-functioning public and private institutions, (b) well-developed infrastructure, (c) stable macroeconomic environment, (d) healthy workforce with basic education, (e) higher education and training, (f) efficient goods markets, (g) well-functioning labour markets, (h) developed financial markets, (i) harnessing benefits of existing technologies, (j) large domestic or foreign market, (k) sophisticated production processes and (l) innovating new things (World Economic Forum, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016a, b, 2017). Low ranking on the 12 pillars suggests that they are inhibiting barriers.

Methodology and Approach

In order to provide logical answers to the two RQs, this study adopts a qualitative research method—an interpretive research paradigm. This methodological approach is based on a triangulation of data sources, including scholarly articles, relevant online resources and secondary data. Essentially, the GCI reports for 10 years (World Economic Forum, 2008–2017) enriched by scholarly works including insights from the reports of GEI provided the secondary data for analysing the levels of EI and CA in Nigeria in comparison with three other African countries. Using content analysis, this study extracted the ranking scores of Nigeria and three African countries for a period of 10 years. For the second RQ, the study adopted 6 out of the 12 pillars of GCI as measurement of competitiveness because they fit better the focus of the research and also they are the most critical barriers judging by their ranking scores as shown in Table 4. The six most preferred and adopted pillar are institutions, infrastructure, macro-economic environment, technological readiness, business sophistication and innovation. Besides, the adopted six pillars were more-inclusive. The good market and labour market efficiency pillars are structurally captured by the business sophistication pillar. Whereas, the health and primary education, and higher education and training pillars fall operationally within the institutions pillar (health centres and three levels of education are institutions). The financial market development and market size are essentially macro-economic issues that have been accommodated under macro-economic environment pillar. Qualitative research methodological tradition supports the integration and harmonisation of pillars as done above. It has been argued that qualitative research assists in the development of an integrative theoretical framework for exploratory study (Ghalwash, Tolba, & Ismail, 2017; Saunders, Lewis, & Thornhill, 2012).

Results/Findings and Discussion

After a critical review of the GCI reports for a period of 10 years (2008–2017) using content analysis, the required information and secondary data were extracted, analysed and presented using tables. For the first RQ: What are the levels of entrepreneurship innovation and CA in Nigeria?, from Tables 2 and 3, it is obvious that Nigeria has low levels of EI and CA for 10 years in comparison with three selected African countries. For 2008, Table 2 indicated that Nigeria was ranked 94th on competitiveness behind South Africa (45th), Ghana (102nd) and Cameroon (114th). For 2009, Nigeria was ranked 99th, South Africa (45th), Ghana (114th) and Cameroon (111th^.). The low level of competitiveness was sustained in 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2013. For 2014, Nigeria was ranked 127th behind South Africa (56th), Ghana (111th) and Cameroon (116th). In 2015, Nigeria was ranked 124th behind South Africa (49th), Ghana (119th) and Cameroon (114th). For 2016, Nigeria occupied the 127th position behind South Africa (47th), Ghana (119th) and Cameroon (119th). Finally, for 2017, Nigeria occupied 125th position behind the three selected countries, South Africa (61st), Ghana (111th) and Cameroon (116th).

Table 2.

Level of Competitiveness

Year	Nigeria	South Africa	Ghana	Cameroon
2008	94th	45th	102nd	114th
2009	99th	45th	114th	111st
2010	127th	54th	114th	111st
2011	127th	50th	114th	116th
2012	115th	52nd	103rd	112rd
2013	120th	53rd	113rd	115th
2014	127th	56th	111st	116th
2015	124th	49th	119th	114th
2016	127th	47th	119th	119th
2017	125th	61st	111st	116th

Source: Authors’ extract from GCI report (World Economic Forum, 2008–2017).

Table 3.

Level of Innovation

Year	Nigeria	South Africa	Ghana	Cameroon
2008	65th	37th	114th	108th
2009	73rd	41st	115th	102nd
2010	98th	44th	99th	95th
2011	82nd	41st	98th	81st
2012	78th	42nd	95th	79th
2013	100th	39th	64th	80th
2014	103rd	37th	68th	84th
2015	117th	38th	65th	79th
2016	113th	42nd	69th	90th
2017	112th	39th	57th	77th

Source: Authors’ extract from GCI report (World Economic Forum, 2008–2017).

Table 3 indicated that for 2008, Nigeria was ranked 65th on innovation far behind South Africa ranked 37th, but better than Ghana (114th) and Cameroon (108th). For 2009, Nigeria was ranked 73rd, South Africa (41th), Ghana (115th) and Cameroon (102nd^.). The low level of competitiveness was sustained in 2010, 2012 and 2013. There was a slight improvement in 2012 compared to 2011 when Nigeria was ranked 78th on innovation as against 82nd in 2011. For 2014, Nigeria was ranked 103rd on innovation behind South Africa (37th), Ghana (68th) and Cameroon (84th). The ranking worsened in 2015 as Nigeria was ranked 117th behind South Africa (38th), Ghana (65th) and Cameroon (79th). For 2016, Nigeria occupied 113th position behind South Africa (47th), Ghana (69th) and Cameroon (90th). For 2017, Nigeria occupied 112th position on innovativeness also behind South Africa (39th), Ghana (57th) and Cameroon (77th).

Comparatively, the findings from selected GEI reports were instructive. In the GEI reports, EI is represented as a pillar under entrepreneurial aspiration (ASP), while CA is a pillar under entrepreneurial abilities (ABT). Nigeria was ranked 74th overall on EI and CA in 2013 as against 51st, 94th and 98th for South Africa, Ghana and Cameroon, respectively (GEDI, 2014). For 2015, Nigeria was ranked 85th overall on EI and CA as against 52nd, 99th and 115th for South Africa, Ghana and Cameroon, respectively (GEDI, 2016). For 2017, Nigeria was ranked 101st overall on EI and CA as against 57th, 93rd and 121st for South Africa, Ghana and Cameroon, respectively (GEDI, 2018).

For the second RQ: What are the key barriers to EI and CA in Nigeria?, the answer emerged from both scholarly works and GCI reports. Specifically, Jegede et al. (2012) found that the key barrier to innovation at the national and industry levels in Nigeria is inadequate funding of R&D. This is because resources appropriated for R&D expenditures in Nigeria is a function of organisation’s orientation about innovation (firm’s innovation strategy).

Similarly, Oyinloye (2015) found that the key barriers to Nigeria’s competitiveness include: (a) huge infrastructure deficit especially high cost of doing business and non-focus on real sector growth, (b) poor educational and human capacity development system—lack of innovation and skilled labour force, (c) inconsistent fiscal policies where enterprises cannot plan long-term strategies for business efficiency, (d) weak legal and regulatory framework, which affect corporate governance and sanctity of contracts and (e) innate distrust and believe system in Nigeria, which affects productivity, investments decision and national orientation.

However, the GCI reports identified six critical pillars as key barriers to EI and CA. These barriers are: (a) inadequate infrastructure, (b) weak institutions, (c) weak macroeconomic environment, (d) low technological readiness, (e) Poor business sophistication and (f) poor innovation (GCI, 2008–2017). This finding is consistent with previous studies such as Mohnen, Palm, van der Loeff, and Tiwary (2008), Galia, Mancini, and Morandi (2012), Iammarino, Sanna-Randaccio, and Savona (2007), GCI (2014, 2015, 2017) and D’Este, Iammarino, Savona, and von Tunzelmann (2008). From Table 4, a review of the GCI reports for ten years showed that Nigeria’s overall performance on the 12 pillars of competitiveness was poor but its performance on some pillars was modest.

The 12 Pillars of GCI above were modified into 6 critical and more-inclusive pillars. The good market efficiency and labour market efficiency pillars have been captured by the business sophistication pillar. Whereas, the heath and primary education and higher education and training pillars are captured in the institution’s pillar (health centres and three levels of education are institutions). The last two pillars of financial market development and market size are essentially macro-economic issues; they have accommodated under macro-economic environment pillar. Summarily, the key barriers to EI and CA in Nigeria are infrastructural neglect, lack of strong regulatory institutions, weak macroeconomic environment, weak technological readiness, poor business sophistication and low innovation among others.

Discussions of Findings

The first finding is supported by previous studies. Nigeria manifests low EI and CA because the country’s innovation system is not as well developed as those of other African countries (Radwan & Pellegrini, 2010). Using the 12 pillars of competitiveness, Nițu-Antonie, Feder, and Munteanu (2017) found that GCI’s 12 pillars of competitiveness have positive influence on the entrepreneurial behaviour. Conversely, entrepreneurial behaviour stimulates growth of gross domestic product, exports, imports and employment, sustainable economic and social progress in the economy. Another study established that production systems in Nigeria are far less efficient despite its great potential gains in EI that could radically move the manufacturing sector towards more modern and efficient production techniques with similar ripple effects on the service sector (Radwan & Pellegrini, 2010).

Table 4.

Barriers to Entrepreneurial Innovation and Competitive Advantage

Year

Institution

Infrastructure

Macroeconomic Environment

Health and Primary Education

Higher Education and Training

Goods Market Efficiency

Labour Market Efficiency

Financial Market Development

Technological Readiness

Market Size

Business Sophistication

Innovation

2008

106th

120th

26th

126th

108th

56th

59th

54th

94th

39th

61st

65th

2009

102nd

127th

20th

132nd

113th

62nd

61st

57th

101st

42nd

89th

73rd

2010

121st

135th

97th

137th

118th

87th

74th

84th

104th

30th

76th

98th

2011

111th

135th

121st

140th

114th

73rd

70th

86th

106th

34th

64th

82nd

2012

117th

130th

39th

142nd

113th

88th

56th

68th

112th

33rd

66th

78th

2013

129th

135th

48th

146th

120th

93rd

52nd

66th

108th

32nd

75th

100th

2014

129th

134th

76th

143rd

124th

87th

40th

67th

104th

33rd

87th

114th

2015

124th

133rd

81st

140th

128th

100th

35th

79th

106th

25th

94th

117th

2016

118th

132nd

108th

138th

125th

98th

37th

89th

105th

26th

99th

113th

2017

125th

132nd

122nd

136th

116th

96th

32nd

91st

122nd

26th

54th

112th

Source: Authors’ extract from GCI report (2008–2017).

The second finding on key barriers hindering EI and competitiveness in Nigeria is supported by previous works. The study of Jegede et al. (2012) found that the barrier to innovation at the national and industry levels is inadequate funding of R&D. This is because resources appropriated for R&D expenditures in developing countries including Nigeria is largely dependent on organisation’s orientation about innovation (firm’s innovation strategy), as there are innovative organisations and non-innovative organisations. Innovative organisations give priority and importance to innovative practices as well as appropriate adequate funds for R&D expenditures. This is not the same with non-innovative organisations, where status quo is celebrated. Similarly, D’Este et al. (2012) found 11 barriers to EI in the United Kingdom. The identified barriers include excessive perceived economic risks, direct innovation costs too high, cost of finance and availability of finance knowledge (cost factors); lack of qualified personnel and information on technology and markets (knowledge factors); market dominated by established enterprises and uncertain demand for innovative goods/services (market factors) and need to meet UK government regulations and EU regulations (regulation factors). These barriers are similar in several respects with the six barriers identified by this study. It is also consistent with six inhibiting barriers found by Hadjimanolis (2003) some years back.

Conclusions, Practical Implications and Suggestions

This study sets out to explore levels of, and barriers to EI and CA in Nigeria within the global innovation ecosystems. Using a qualitative research approach relying on secondary data extracted from the reports of GCI and enriched by scholarly works including insights from the reports of GEI, the study found that for a period of 10 years (2008–2017), Nigeria manifested low EI and CA, whereas other African countries such as Ghana, Cameroon and South Africa with lesser economic resources did comparatively better. It was also found that the key barriers to EI and CA are infrastructural neglect, lack of strong regulatory institutions, weak macroeconomic environment, weak technological readiness, poor business sophistication and low innovation among others. The study improves understanding of theoretical, managerial and policy implications of EI and CA in the light of the phenomenal comparative advantage of the Nigerian Nollywood film industry leveraging indigenous innovation. Consequently, what is deemed to be innovative in a developing nation may not be innovative in the developed nation, and vice versa. The Nollywood film industry in Nigeria therefore refutes the one-hat-fits-all approach often prescribed in Western literatures on EI and CA. The study therefore affirms the Schumpeter’s creative discovery theory and the RBV. The article also proposes a conceptual framework that reinvents EI and environment as the drivers of CA, and subsequently explains how CA stimulates positive economic outcomes in terms of economic growth, FDI, economic development and good ranking in the economy. The next stage of this research is to subject the exploratory findings to empirical testing. This entails conducting a multiple regression analysis to explain the relationship between EI and some pillars of competitiveness leveraging the data sets of GCI and GEI. From the foregoing, the following policy suggestions are imperative for improving EI for CA in Nigeria.

There is need to embed EI and CA in the public and private sectors in Nigeria. This could take the forms of adopting and adapting novel technologies, new models and better processes from other parts of the world to the local situation or context.

The policymakers in Nigeria should also encourage and promote innovative research and knowledge sharing between public and the private sector organisations. This collaboration is expected to improve the global ranking of Nigeria on GCI and GEI annually.

Finally, it is suggested that there is need for increased funding to research institutions at the industry and national levels. Government is expected to play the leading role in funding innovative research, while the private sector organisations are expected to fund their respective R&D departments.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Lukman Raimi

References

Acs

Z. J.

Szerb

(2010, June 16–18). The global entrepreneurship and development index (GEDI) . Paper presented at the DRUID Conference, Imperial College Business School, London. Retrieved from http://www2.druid.dk/conferences/viewpaper.php?id=502261&cf=43

Aubert

J. E.

(2005). Promoting innovation in developing countries: A conceptual framework . Retrieved from https://elibrary.worldbank.org/doi/pdf/10.1596/1813-9450-3554

Autio

Kenney

Mustar

Siegel

Wright

(2014). Entrepreneurial innovation: The importance of context. Research Policy , 43(7), 1097–1108.

Baliamoune-Lutz

(2007). Entrepreneurship, reforms and development: Empirical evidence (ICER Working Paper No. 38/2007). Turin.

Barney

(1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management , 17, 99–120.

Barney

J. B.

(1995). Looking inside for competitive advantage. Academy of Management Perspectives , 9(4), 49–61.

Barney

J. B.

(2001). Resource-based theories of competitive advantage: A ten-year retrospective on the resource-based view. Journal of Management , 27(6), 643–650.

Barney

J. B.

Hesterly

(2006). Organizational economics: Understanding the relationship between organizations and economic analysis. The SAGE handbook of organization studies , 111–148.

Baumol

W. J.

(2002). The free-market innovation machine: Analyzing the growth miracle of capitalism . Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

10.

Camisón

Villar-López

(2014). Organizational innovation as an enabler of technological innovation capabilities and firm performance. Journal of Business Research , 67(1), 2891–2902.

11.

Christensen

C. M.

Raynor

M. E.

(2003). The innovator’s solution: Creating and sustaining successful growth . Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

12.

Chun

Kim

J. W.

Morck

Yeung

(2008). Creative destruction and firm-specific performance heterogeneity. Journal of Financial Economics , 89(1), 109–135.

13.

Costa

(2014, Sep 22). Innovate or die: Why innovation matters. HuffPost . Retrieved from https://www.huffingtonpost.com/jose-costa/innovate-or-die-why-innov_b_5610832.html (Accessed: September 23, 2017).

14.

Covin

J. G.

Miles

M. P.

(1999). Corporate entrepreneurship and the pursuit of competitive advantage. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice , 23(3), 47–47.

15.

D’Este

Iammarino

Savona

von Tunzelmann

(2008). What hampers innovation? Evidence from the UK CIS4 (SPRU Working Paper No. 168). Retrieved from https://www.sussex.ac.uk/webteam/gateway/file.php?name=sewp168&site=25

16.

D’Este

Iammarino

Savona

von Tunzelmann

(2012). What hampers innovation? Revealed barriers versus deterring barriers. Research Policy , 41(2), 482–488.

17.

De Mel

McKenzie

D. J.

Woodruff

C. M.

(2009). Innovative firms or innovative owners? Determinants of innovation in micro, small, and medium enterprises . Retrieved from https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1407952

18.

Diamond

A. M.

Jr (2006). Schumpeter’s creative destruction: A review of the evidence. Journal of Private Enterprise , 22(1), 120–146.

19.

Dosi

(1988). The nature of the innovative process. In Dosi

Freeman

Nelson

Silverberg

Soete

(Eds.), Technical change and economic theory (pp. 221–238, 349–369). London: Pinter Publishers.

20.

Drucker

(2014). Innovation and entrepreneurship . Abingdon: Routledge.

21.

Eckhardt

J. T.

Shane

S. A.

(2003). Opportunities and entrepreneurship. Journal of Management , 29(3), 333–349

22.

Evuleocha

(2008). Nollywood and the home video revolution: Implications for marketing videofilm in Africa. International Journal of Emerging Markets , 3(4), 407–417.

23.

Ezeonu

(2013). Nollywood consensus: Modeling a development pathway for Africa. The Global South , 7(1), 179–199.

24.

Fagerberg

(2004). Innovation: A guide to the literature . Atlanta, GA: Georgia Institute of Technology.

25.

Fagerberg

Verspagen

(2009). Innovation studies: The emerging structure of a new scientific field. Research Policy , 38(2), 218–233.

26.

Galia

Mancini

Morandi

(2012, June 19–21). Obstacles to innovation: What hampers innovation in France Italy? Paper presented at the DRUID 2012, CBS, Copenhagen, Denmark.

27.

Garud

Gehman

Giuliani

A. P.

(2014). Contextualizing entrepreneurial innovation: A narrative perspective. Research Policy , 43(7), 1177–1188.

28.

Ghalwash

Tolba

Ismail

(2017). What motivates social entrepreneurs to start social ventures? An exploratory study in the context of a developing economy. Social Enterprise Journal , 13(3), 268–298.

29.

Goswami

Mathew

(2005). Definition of innovation revisited: An empirical study on Indian information technology industry. International Journal of Innovation Management , 9(03), 371–383.

30.

Greenhalgh

Robert

Macfarlane

Bate

Kyriakidou

(2004). Diffusion of innovations in service organizations: Systematic review and recommendations. The Milbank Quarterly , 82(4), 581–629.

31.

Grimaldi

Kenney

Siegel

Wright

(2011). 30 years after Bayh–Dole: Reassessing academic entrepreneurship. Research Policy , 40(8), 1045–1057

32.

Hadjimanolis

(2003). The barriers approach to innovation. In Shavinina

Larisa

(Ed.), The International Handbook on Innovation (Ch. 1). Oxford: Elsevier Science.

33.

Hillman

A. J.

Withers

M. C.

Collins

B. J.

(2009). Resource dependence theory: A review. Journal of management , 35(6), 1404–1427.

34.

Hill

W.L.

Jones

G.R

Galvin

Haidar

(2007). Strategic management: An integrated approach . Australia: John Wiley and Sons.

35.

Iammarino

Sanna-Randaccio

Savona

(2007). The perception of obstacles to innovation. Foreign multinational and domestic firms in Italy. Revue d’Economie Industrielle , 125, 75–104.

36.

Jedlowski

(2013). From Nollywood to Nollyvvorld: Processes of transnationalization in the Nigerian video film industry. Global Nollywood: The Transnational Dimensions of an African Video Film Industry , 1, 25.

37.

Jegede

O. O.

Ilori

M. O.

Sonibare

J. A.

Oluwale

B. A.

Siyanbola

W. O.

(2012). Factors influencing innovation and competitiveness in the service sector in Nigeria: A sub-sectoral approach. Management , 2(3), 69–79.

38.

Kenney

Patton

(2005). Entrepreneurial geographies: Support networks in three high-tech industries. Economic Geography , 81(2), 201–228.

39.

Kinicki

Williams

(2010). Management: A practical introduction . New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

40.

Knott

(2009). Integrating resource-based theory in a practice-relevant form. Journal of Strategy and Management , 2(2), 163–174.

41.

Kuratko

D. F.

Hodgetts

R. M.

(2004). Innovation and the entrepreneur. Entrepreneurship (6th Edn. pp. 138–150) Mason, OH: Thomson.

42.

Kuratko

D. F.

Hodgetts

R. M.

(2007). Developing creativity and understanding innovation. Entrepreneurship, Thomson-Southwestern , 120–138.

43.

Lockett

Thompson

Morgenstern

(2009). The development of the resource-based view of the firm: A critical appraisal. International Journal of Management Reviews , 11(1), 9–28.

44.

Longenecker

J.G.

Moore

C. W.

Petty

J. W.

Palich

L. E.

(2006). Small business management: An entrepreneurial emphasis . (International edition). Mason, OH: Thompson.

45.

Lumpkin

G. T.

Dess

G. G.

(1996). Clarifying the entrepreneurial orientation construct and linking it to performance. Academy of Management Review , 21(1), 135–172.

46.

Madichie

N. O.

(2010). The Nigerian movie industry ‘Nollywood’: A nearly perfect marketing case study. Marketing Intelligence & Planning , 28(5), 625–649.

47.

Madrid-Guijarro

Garcia

Van Auken

(2009). Barriers to innovation among Spanish manufacturing SMEs. Journal of Small Business Management , 47(4), 465–488.

48.

Maldonado-Guzmán

Marín-Aguilar

J. T.

Pinzón-Castro

S. Y.

(2017). Service innovation in Mexican small business. Advances in Management & Applied Economics , 7(4), 1–16.

49.

McAdam

McConvery

Armstrong

(2004). Barriers to innovation within small firms in a peripheral location. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research , 10(3), 206–221.

50.

Meagher

(2003). A back door to globalisation? Structural adjustment, globalisation & transborder trade in West Africa. Review of African Political Economy , 30(95), 57–75.

51.

Miller

(2012). Global Nollywood: The Nigerian movie industry and alternative global networks in production and distribution. Global Media and Communication , 8(2), 117–133.

52.

Mohnen

Palm

F. C.

van der Loeff

Tiwary

(2008). Financial constraints and other obstacles: Are they a threat to innovation activity? De Economist , 156, 201–214.

53.

Mustar

Wright

(2010). Convergence or path dependency in policies to foster the creation of university spin-off firms? A comparison of France and the United Kingdom. Journal of Technology Transfer , 35(1), 42–65.

54.

Nițu-Antonie

R. D.

Feder

E. S.

Munteanu

V. P.

(2017). Macroeconomic effects of entrepreneurship from an international perspective. Sustainability , 9(7), 1–21. Retrieved from http://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/9/7/1159/htm

55.

Ondego

(2008). Kenya and Nollywood: A state of dependence. In Barrot

(Ed.), Nollywood: The video phenomenon in Nigeria (pp. 114–120). Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.

56.

Onyemenam

C. E.

(2004, June 15–16). Firm level competitiveness in Nigeria . Paper presented at the ODI-NESG Seminar on ‘Maximizing pro-poor growth: Regenerating the socio-economic database in Nigeria’ of City University, Northampton Square, London.

57.

Oyinloye

A. A.

(2015). Achieving competitiveness, inclusive growth and sustainability in real sector development in Nigeria: The tough choices in an era of change . Retrieved from https://www.proshareng.com/admin/upload/reports/AchievingCompetitivenessInclusiveGrowth.pdf

58.

Parrilli

M. D.

Heras

H. A.

(2016). STI and DUI innovation modes: Scientific-technological and context-specific nuances. Research Policy , 45(4), 747–756.

59.

Porter

M. E.

(1990). The competitive advantage of nations. Harvard Business Review , 68(2), 73–93.

60.

Porter

M. E.

(2001). Competitive advantage: Creating and sustaining superior performance. Simon and Schuster . Retrieved from http://www.tsakunov.com/lectures/Michael-Porter-The-Competitive-Advantage-of-Nationscover-story.pdf

61.

Radwan

Pellegrini

(2010). Knowledge, productivity, and innovation in Nigeria: Creating a new economy. World Bank Publications . Retrieved from https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/7a0c/2f83ec1af83a1f978571d976f05af9704ebe.pdf?_ga=2.159032762.124983676.1579842227-1197645182.1559300459

62.

Raimi

(2015). Entrepreneurship development through corporate social responsibility: A study of the Nigerian telecommunication industry (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Leicester Business School, De Montfort University, Leicester.

63.

Raimi

Aslani

(2019). Exploring the contributions of informal ethnic entrepreneurship to economic development in Nigeria – A chapter contribution. In Ramadani

Dana

L.-P.

Ratten

Bexheti

(Eds.) Informal Ethnic Entrepreneurship- Future Research Paradigms for Creating Innovative Business Activity (pp.179–194), Switzerland: Springer Nature. Retrieved from “https://www.researchgate.net/publication/327824299_Exploring_the_Contributions_of_Informal_Ethnic_Entrepreneurship_to_Economic_Development_in_Nigeria_-_A_chapter_contribution_In_Informal_Ethnic_Entrepreneurship-_Future_Research_Paradigms_for_Creating_”

64.

Raimi

Moshood

A. B.

Shokunbi

M. O.

Cole

B. M.

(2016). Indigenous entrepreneurs and battle for competitive edge with multinational corporations in Nigeria. International Journal of Economic Behavior (IJEB) , 6, 85–96. Retrieved from “http://ijeb.faa.ro/en/article/Indigenous-Entrepreneurs-and-Battle-for-Competitive-Edge-with-Multinational-Corporations-in-Nigeria~512.html”

65.

Raimi

Patel

Yekini

Fadipe

A. O.

(2014). Spatio-temporal audit of Nigeria’s industrial policies and entrepreneurship development interventions from 1946 to 2013. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science , 4(1), 294–309.

66.

Raimi

Shokunbi

M. O.

Peluola

S. B.

(2010). Entrepreneurship and development institutions in Nigeria: Prospects and challenges. In Subair

Kola

(Ed.), Small and medium entrepreneurship in Nigeria . Nigeria: Kwara State University.

67.

Rasmussen

(2010). Innovation and commercialisation in the biopharmaceutical industry: Creating and capturing value . Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.

68.

Rath

(2002). Unraveling the rag trade: Immigrant entrepreneurship in seven world cities . Oxford: Berg Publishers.

69.

Rath

(2010). Ethnic entrepreneurship: Concept paper . Research project. Institute for Migration and Ethnic Studies (IMES) at the University of Amsterdam. Available: https://www.eurofound.europa.eu/sites/default/files/ef_publication/field_ef_document/ef1039en.pdf (accessed January 31, 2019).

70.

Saunders

Lewis

Thornhill

(Eds.). (2012). Research methods for business students . Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.

71.

Tang

C. D.

(2007). Multidimensional innovation and productivity. Economics of Innovation and New Technology , 16(7), 501–516.

72.

Teece

D. J.

(2012). Dynamic capabilities: Routines versus entrepreneurial action. Journal of Management Studies , 49(8), 1395–1401.

73.

The Economist . (2010, December 10). Lights, camera, Africa: Movies are uniting a disparate continent and dividing it too. Retrieved from https://www.economist.com/christmas-specials/2010/12/16/lights-camera-africa

74.

The Global Entrepreneurship and Development Institute (GEDI). (2014). Global Entrepreneurship Index . Washington, DC: Author.

75.

The Global Entrepreneurship and Development Institute (GEDI). (2016). Global Entrepreneurship Index . Washington, DC: Author.

76.

The Global Entrepreneurship and Development Institute (GEDI). (2018). Global Entrepreneurship Index . Washington, DC: Author.

77.

Waldinger

(1986). Immigrant enterprise: A critique and reformulation. Theory and Society , 249–285.

78.

Williams

L. D.

Woodson

T. S.

(2012). The future of innovation studies in less economically developed countries. Minerva , 50(2), 221–237.

79.

Wolf

(2006). Encouraging innovation and productivity growth in Africa to create decent jobs . Paper presented at DPRU/TIPS Conference on Accelerated and Shared Growth in South Africa: Determinants, Constraints and Opportunities, 18–20 October 2006, Johannesburg, South Africa.

80.

Wong

P. K.

Y. P.

Autio

(2005). Entrepreneurship, innovation and economic growth: Evidence from GEM data. Small Business Economics , 24(3), 335–350.

81.

Woodruff

R. B.

(1997). Customer value: The next source for competitive advantage. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science , 25(2), 139–153.

82.

World Economic Forum. (2008). The global competitiveness report 2008–2009 . Retrieved from https://www.weforum.org/reports/global-competitiveness-report-2008-2009

83.

World Economic Forum. (2009). The global competitiveness report 2009–2010 . Retrieved from https://www.weforum.org/reports/global-competitiveness-report-2009-2010

84.

World Economic Forum. (2010). The global competitiveness report 2010–2011 . Retrieved from http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_GlobalCompetitivenessReport_2010-11.pdf

85.

World Economic Forum. (2011). The global competitiveness report 2011–2012 . Retrieved from https://hec.unil.ch/docs/files/21/1036/wef_gcr_report_2011-12.pdf

86.

World Economic Forum. (2012). The global competitiveness report 2012–2013 . Retrieved from http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_GlobalCompetitivenessReport_2012-13.pdf

87.

World Economic Forum. (2013). The global competitiveness report 2013–2014 . Retrieved from http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_GlobalCompetitivenessReport_2013-14.pdf

88.

World Economic Forum. (2014). The global competitiveness report 2014–2015 . Retrieved from http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_GlobalCompetitivenessReport_2014-15.pdf

89.

World Economic Forum. (2015). The global competitiveness report 2015–2016 . Retrieved from http://www3.weforum.org/docs/gcr/2015-2016/Global_Competitiveness_Report_2015-2016.pdf

90.

World Economic Forum. (2016a). Methodology: The 12 pillars of competitiveness . Retrieved from http://reports.weforum.org/global-competitiveness-report-2014-2015/methodology/

91.

World Economic Forum. (2016b). The global competitiveness report 2016–2017 . Retrieved from https://www.weforum.org/reports/the-global-competitiveness-report-2016-2017-1

92.

World Economic Forum. (2017). The global competitiveness report 2017–2018 . Retrieved from https://www.weforum.org/reports/the-global-competitiveness-report-2017-2018

93.

Zahra

Wright

(2011). Entrepreneurship’s next act. Academy of Management Perspectives , 25, 67–83.

94.

Zhou

Shalley

C. E.

(2011). Deepening our understanding of creativity in the workplace: A review of different approaches to creativity research. In Zedeck

(Ed.), APA Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Vol. 1. Building and developing the organization (pp. 275–302). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.