Managing indigenous knowledge for sustainable agricultural development in developing countries: Knowledge management approaches in the social context

Journal of Entrepreneurship in Emerging Economies

Tchamyou

2016

Purpose -The paper assesses how entrepreneurship affects knowledge economy (KE) in Africa.Design/methodology/approach -Entrepreneurship is measured by indicators of starting, doing and ending business. The four dimensions of the World Bank's index of KE are employed. Instrumental variable panel fixed effects are applied on a sampled of 53 African countries for the period 1996-2010.Findings -The following are some findings. First, creating an enabling environment for starting business can substantially boost most dimensions of KE. Second, doing business through mechanisms of trade globalisation has positive effects from sectors that are not ICT and High-tech oriented. Third, the time required to end business has negative effects on KE.Practical implications -Our findings confirm the narrative that the technology in African countries at the moment may be more imitative and adaptive for reverse-engineering in ICTs and high-tech products. Given the massive consumption of ICT and high-tech commodities in Africa, the continent has to start thinking of how to participate in the global value chain of producing what it consumes.Originality/value -This paper has a twofold motivation. First, given the ambitions of African countries of moving towards knowledge based economies, the line of inquiry is timely. Second, investigating the nexus may have substantial poverty mitigation and sustainable development implications. These entail inter alia: the development of technology with value-added services; enhancement of existing agricultural practices; promotion of conditions that are essential for competitiveness and adjustment of globalization challenges.

Section: Knowledge Economy In Africamentioning

confidence: 99%

The impact of entrepreneurship on knowledge economy in Africa

Journal of Entrepreneurship in Emerging Economies

Tchamyou

2016

“…discussions of the phenomenon (Rooney, 2005;Lin, 2006;Anyanwu, 2012); information & communication technologies (Butcher, 2011); education (Amavilah, 2009a;Ford, 2007;Weber, 2011;Wantchekon et al, 2014); institutional regime & economic incentives (Letiche, 2006;Cogburn, 2003;Andrés & Asongu, 2013); intellectual capital & economic development (Wagiciengo & Belal, 2012;Preece, 2013); innovation (Oyelaran-Oyeyinka & Sampath, 2007;Carisle et al, 2013); research & development ( Sumberg, 2005;German & Stroud, 2007); indigenous knowledge systems (Lwoga et al, 2010;Raseroka, 2008); KE in the transformation of space (Moodley, 2003;Maswera et al, 2008); intellectual property rights (Lor & Britz, 2005;Zerbe, 2005;Andrés & Asongu, 2013;Myburgh, 2011;Andrés et al, 2014); and spatiality in the production of knowledge (Bidwell et al, 2011;Neimark, 2012) .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Globalization, Peace & Stability, Governance, and Knowledge Economy

Amavilah¹,

Andrés

2014

SSRN Journal

A previous analysis of the impact of formal institutions on the knowledge economy of 22 MiddleEastern and Sub-Sahara African countries during the 1996-2010 time period concluded that formal institutions were necessary, but inadequate, determinants of the knowledge economy. To extend that study, this paper claims that globalization induces peace and stability, which affects governance and through governance the knowledge economy. The claim addresses one weakness of previous research that did not consider the effects on the knowledge economy of globalization.We model the proposition as a three-stage process in four hypotheses, and estimate each hypothesis using robust estimators that are capable of dealing with the usual statistical problems without sacrificing economic relevance and significance. The results indicate that globalization has varying effects on peace and stability, and peace and stability affect governance differently depending on what kind of globalization induces it. For instance, the effects on governance induced by globalization defined as trade are stronger than those resulting from globalization taken to be foreign direct investment. Hence, we conclude that foreign direct investment is not a powerful mechanism for stimulating and sustaining the knowledge economy in our sample of countries. However, since globalization-induced peace and stability have both positive and negative effects on governance simultaneously, we also conclude that while the prospect for knowledge economy in African countries is dim, it is still realistic and attainable as long as these countries continue to engage in the kind of globalization that does indeed induce peace and stability. We further conclude that there is a need for a sharper focus on economic and institutional governance than on general governance as one possible extension of this paper.

“…Consistent with Asongu and Kodila-Tedika (2015), Africa's development tragedy can be discussed in fifteen main streams, namely: (1) loss of traditional institutions (Lewis, 1955;Amavilah, 2006Amavilah, , 2014 and/or African deinstitutionalization (Nunn, 2008(Nunn, , 2009Nunn & Puga, 2012); (2) the neglect of art as an expression of technological know-how (Amavilah, 2014); (3) juxtaposition between 'private property rights' and 'private use rights' (Amavilah, 2015); (4) idleness of natural resources (Doftman, 1939;Lewis, 1955;Amavilah, 2014); (5) overvaluation of foreign knowledge and devaluation of local knowledge Amavilah et al, 2014;Tchamyou, 2015;Lwoga et al, 2010;Raseroka, 2008;Brush & Stabinsky, 1996); (6) the inability to acknowledge scarcity (Dorfman, 1939;Lucas, 1993;Drine, 2013;Fosu, 2013;America, 2013;Asongu, 2014ab;Looney, 2013); (7) excessive consumption of luxurious goods by the rich elite a (Efobi et al, 2013;Adewole & Osabuohien, 2007); (8) the false economics of pre-conditions (Monga, 2014) and the lost decades with the Washington Consensus (Lin, 2015); (9) issues surrounding colonialism, neo-colonialism and Western imperialism (Ndlovu-Gatsheni, 2013); (10) over reliance on Western policies (Fofack, 2014) and development assistance (Asongu, 2014c;Obeng-Odoom, 2013;Moyo, 2009); (11) failure to integrate qualitative development measurements in development paradigms (Obeng-Odoom, 2013) and the 'Africa rising' narrative (ObengOdoom, 2015)...…”

Section: Historical and Contemporary Perspectivesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reconciliation of the Washington Consensus with the Beijing Model in Africa

Nwachukwu

2016

SSRN Journal

In this study, we argue that an approach which will reconcile the two opposing camps in SinoAfrican relations and bring the most progress is a "middle passage" that greases contradictions and offers an accommodative, balanced and pragmatic vision on which Africans can unite. We present a case under which countries can substantially enhance the prospect of development if an African consensus builds on a merger between the Western and Chinese models. We balance national interest with human rights, sovereign authority with individual rights and economic goals with political rights. The chapter presents arguments on the need for a development paradigm in Africa that reconciles the Washington Consensus with the Beijing Model. The analytical framework is organised in three main strands, notably: