Next Article in Journal
Factors Affecting Former Fishers’ Satisfaction with Fishing Ban Policies: Evidence from Middle and Upper Reaches of Yangtze River
Previous Article in Journal
Assessing the Role of Environmental Education Practices Towards the Attainment of the 2030 Sustainable Development Goals
Previous Article in Special Issue
Factors in the Development of Family Businesses in the SME Sector: Analysis and Assessment of Their Importance in Strategic Enterprise Management
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 17
Issue 5
10.3390/su17052044
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Analyzing Determinants’ Priorities of Entrepreneurial Ecosystems for ICT Start-Ups in Sub-Saharan Africa: A Path Toward Sustainable Development

by
Jonghyun Lee
1 and
Jisong Kim
2,*
1
Graduate School of Pan-Pacific International Studies, Kyung Hee University, Yongin 17104, Republic of Korea
2
Department of Economics, University of Suwon, Hwaseong 18323, Republic of Korea
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2025, 17(5), 2044; https://doi.org/10.3390/su17052044
Submission received: 8 December 2024 / Revised: 18 February 2025 / Accepted: 25 February 2025 / Published: 27 February 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Strategic Enterprise Management and Sustainable Economic Development)
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Despite the growing global interest in African entrepreneurial ecosystems and increased attention from international organizations and governments, the research on the sustainability of Sub-Saharan African entrepreneurial ecosystems remains limited. This study aims to qualitatively examine the major determinants and priorities within the ICT start-up ecosystems of Nigeria, Kenya, and South Africa, where these ecosystems are expanding but still under-researched. Based on the prior research, questions were designed using a priori codes. A total of 15 participants were interviewed, including five stakeholders from the start-up ecosystems in Nigeria, Kenya, and South Africa. The results of the interviews were analyzed through a thematic analysis. While the Sub-Saharan African ICT start-up ecosystem is often viewed as a single, homogeneous entity, this study identified 10 sub-categories derived from the top-five parent categories in each country. This offers valuable insights into the ICT start-up ecosystems of Nigeria, Kenya, and South Africa. This research provides both academic and practical value by analyzing the unique prioritization of determinants within the ICT start-up ecosystems of Nigeria, Kenya, and South Africa, each recognized as a leading ecosystem in the region. This is particularly relevant in the context of various entrepreneurship programs expanding across Africa highlighting significant implications for increasing sustainable development cooperation and investment efforts across the continent.

1. Introduction

Entrepreneurship significantly contributes to economic growth and the creation of new employment opportunities [1,2]. Moreover, entrepreneurial ventures serve as pivotal engines propelling capitalist economies [3] and have, in turn, emerged as substantial driving forces for global economic growth [4]. In this context, entrepreneurs recognize Information Communication Technology (ICT) as a catalyst for creativity and innovation within the market [5]. Furthermore, it is noteworthy that technology start-ups powered by ICT are increasingly gaining prominence [6]. These start-ups, in fact, play indispensable roles in technology and societal development and enjoy widespread recognition for their positive correlation with economic growth [7,8,9].
Recently, there has been noticeable attention to African start-ups, which is driven by the growing recognition that entrepreneurship not only fuels socio-economic development, job creation, and enhanced economic output [10], but also addresses pressing socio-economic challenges [11]. Remarkably, despite the challenges posed by the COVID-19 pandemic, investment in start-ups in Africa has doubled compared to the previous year [12]. Nevertheless, it is worth noting that while technology start-ups in Africa have experienced successful growth [13], the global start-up failure rate remains high [14], and many African start-ups, in particular, have faced closure for various reasons [15]. Despite this, academia has started to take notice, with an increasing number of researchers focusing on African start-ups [16], although start-ups in Africa have historically received relatively limited attention from academia [17].
The study of entrepreneurial ecosystems is essential because start-ups heavily depend on the ecosystems formed through the virtuous cycle of entrepreneurship [18]. Particularly, despite Sub-Saharan countries, such as Nigeria, Kenya, and South Africa, boasting the largest start-up ecosystems [19], these ecosystems remain relatively immature, and there is a dearth of related research. The recent societal consensus regarding the significance of Sub-Saharan African entrepreneurial ecosystems has led to an increased recognition of studies on start-up ecosystems within the Sub-Saharan African context [20]. Nevertheless, while there is a societal consensus on the importance of ICT start-up entrepreneurial ecosystems, determining which of the constituent determinants of the entrepreneurial ecosystem is more crucial remains a challenging problem.
In this study, we have undertaken an examination of experts actively engaged within the start-up ecosystems of three prominent Sub-Saharan African nations. Gathering the data in these regions presents unique challenges compared to more established start-up ecosystems. Our analysis of the collected data holds both academic and practical significance. This research contributes academically by addressing a gap in the existing studies, while also offering practical value by assisting in the identification of critical priorities within the entrepreneurial ecosystems of these nations. This is particularly pertinent in the context of the increasing development cooperation and investment efforts across Africa.

2. Theoretical Background

2.1. Entrepreneurial Ecosystem for ICT Start-Ups

The concept of the entrepreneurial ecosystem began to take shape during the 1980s and 1990s, as discussions about entrepreneurship underwent a significant transformation [21]. During this period, the researchers started to challenge the traditional emphasis on individual personality traits as the primary explanation for entrepreneurial behavior. Instead, they shifted their focus toward exploring the wider social and economic frameworks that influence the entrepreneurial process [21,22]. The concept of the entrepreneurial ecosystem, initially introduced by Spilling [23], has evolved within the entrepreneurship research. Spilling emphasized its intricate nature, highlighting the involvement of diverse actors, roles, and environmental elements. Building on this foundation, Cohen defined it as a network of actors contributing to local community development through support for ventures [24]. Isenberg expanded this concept, asserting that the entrepreneurial ecosystem plays a pivotal role in entrepreneurial activity, encompassing policy, finance, culture, support systems, human capital, and market conditions [25]. Notably, the recent research by Wadee and Padayachee underscores the increasing importance of the entrepreneurial ecosystem, particularly in shaping individuals’ entrepreneurial decisions and their subsequent success rates, making it a focal point of contemporary entrepreneurship scholarship [26].
A start-up, according to Salamzadeh, is the initial stage when someone starts a new business or organization [27]. It is characterized as a company that introduces innovative ideas or technology to the market, often associated with a high level of risk, significant growth potential, and rapid development [28,29,30]. Typically temporary entities, start-ups aim to identify profitable, replicable, and scalable business models [31]. Specifically, ICT start-ups focus on information and communication technology [32]. The concept of a digital entrepreneurial ecosystem has gained recognition due to the increasing interdependence between ICT and entrepreneurship, where digital infrastructure, platforms, and networks play a crucial role in fostering new ventures [33]. Various stakeholders, including policymakers, investors, accelerators, and academic institutions, contribute to shaping entrepreneurial ecosystems by providing essential resources, funding, mentorship, and regulatory support, which foster innovation, collaboration, and the growth of new ventures [34]. This digital entrepreneurial ecosystem entails optimizing digital infrastructure in new systems, platforms, and networks [35]. The research on entrepreneurial ecosystems is referred to by various names, such as start-up, business, and venture ecosystems [36]. Established entrepreneurial ecosystems play a vital role in economies facing low growth [37]. As a result, studies have expanded to both advanced and emerging economies, including Africa, to explore how entrepreneurial ecosystems function and support growth in these regions [7,8,21,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45].

2.2. ICT Start-Up Ecosystems in Sub-Saharan Africa

The entrepreneurial ecosystem plays a crucial role in fostering entrepreneurship within specific regional contexts, each marked by its distinct characteristics [41]. In Africa, particularly Sub-Saharan Africa, entrepreneurship is thriving thanks to advancements in information and communication technologies, which have turned it into a driving force for economic development [46,47]. Sub-Saharan Africa is experiencing rapid growth in mobile telecommunications, internet, medical, and software services, primarily driven by mobile communication [48]. Local start-ups are actively addressing societal issues and creating jobs, thus contributing to the African start-up ecosystem, which was estimated to be worth USD 24 billion from the latter half of 2020 to 2022 [49].
Despite its potential, the Sub-Saharan African start-up ecosystem faces challenges, including weak support structures and a shortage of opportunity-driven entrepreneurs [50]. Moreover, obstacles include inadequate government policies, high taxes, political instability, limited access to seed funding, insufficient collaboration between start-ups and academic institutions, as well as a scarcity of resources, technology, ICT infrastructure, and utilities [51,52]. It is worth noting that the informal economy, largely driven by early-stage start-ups, makes a significant contribution to GDP and employment [53,54]. Consequently, many African start-ups must overcome these challenges to progress beyond the early-stage phase [16].
Despite these obstacles and the impact of COVID-19, the ICT start-up ecosystem in Africa continues to thrive. In 2021, there was a 27.7% increase in the number of investments and a 42.7% rise in investment volume [12]. Notably, Nigeria, Kenya, South Africa, and Egypt emerge as the leading players in Africa’s start-up ecosystem, collectively accounting for 80% of total start-up investments [55]. Within Sub-Saharan Africa, these three regions dominate the start-up landscape, presenting significant growth opportunities [49,56,57].

2.3. Previous Research

The entrepreneurial ecosystem, which support new businesses in specific regions, interacts within the entrepreneurial system [41]. Isenberg categorized it into policy, finance, culture, support, human capital, and markets, along with sub-categories like leadership, government, financial capital, success stories, societal norms, infrastructure, expert support, private institutions, workforce, educational institutions, initial customers, and networks [58]. Consequently, studies often incorporate these domains, derived from Isenberg’s original six determinants: policy, finance, culture, support, human capital, and markets [18,41,59].
Africa’s start-up scene is expanding amid global changes [60]. However, the research on African start-ups remains limited [20]. In their study spanning from 2009 to 2019, Igwe and Icha-Ituma discovered that the research on African start-ups often concentrates on topics such as gender, family businesses, race, entrepreneurship, and SMEs [61]. Yet, it lacks a comprehensive understanding of individual Sub-Saharan African countries, particularly when it comes to ICT start-up ecosystems. Meanwhile, Cao and Shi conducted a systematic literature review and observed a growing body of research on advanced start-up ecosystems, like the U.S., and emerging ones, like India and China [62]. However, they noted a significant scarcity of studies related to Africa. Recently, entrepreneurial ecosystems have gained recognition as a pathway to sustainable development in Africa, with scholars emphasizing their role in fostering innovation, job creation, and inclusive growth [25,63].
Beugré focused on establishing start-up ecosystems in Sub-Saharan Africa, identifying key determinants, like governments, higher education institutions, the private sector, civil society, and international organizations, using the Quintuple Helix Model [56]. He advocated exploring economic opportunities, especially in countries like Nigeria, South Africa, and Kenya, and emphasized the need for each African nation to craft its unique entrepreneurial ecosystem. Similarly, Manya conducted a qualitative study in Nigeria’s Yabacon start-up ecosystem [64], conducting 30 semi-structured interviews and using frameworks by Isenberg and Mazzarol [25,65]. He skillfully pinpointed major determinants, including venture capital, government, universities, and support, while highlighting Nigeria’s distinctive characteristics and challenges, such as police brutality, private learning centers, and the informal economy. Additionally, Sheriff and Muffatto conducted a comprehensive literature review based on Isenberg’s framework, analyzing entrepreneurial ecosystems in Botswana, Egypt, Ghana, and Uganda, with a particular focus on policymakers’ roles [66].
While not emphasizing major determinants, other studies on the African ecosystem have emerged. Anwana and Anwana identified areas requiring improvement, advocating policy reform to bolster South Africa’s entrepreneurial framework [67]. Ajah and Ononiwu conducted a literature study examining mechanisms promoting start-up emergence in Nigeria’s digital ecosystems [68], while Wadee and Padayachee qualitatively explored the relationship between the entrepreneurial ecosystem and higher education institutions, such as universities [26]. Additionally, a growing body of research concerning entrepreneurship in Sub-Saharan Africa encompasses diverse topics, such as investigating the link between educational levels of female entrepreneurs in Uganda and their success [69] and delving into microfinance and micro-entrepreneurship in Nigeria’s southeastern region [70]. Furthermore, some scholarly work has examined Africa’s fintech entrepreneurial ecosystem and fintech start-ups [71], the quality of linkages between and within ecosystems [72,73], while others have highlighted barriers to developing healthy entrepreneurial ecosystems [73] and entrepreneurship support programs [74]. However, it is crucial to acknowledge the limitations despite the increasing research on the Sub-Saharan African start-up ecosystem. Many of these studies do not consider the unique characteristics of individual countries or cities, potentially falling short in explaining the significance of specific determinants.
To address these challenges, Lee and Kwak extensively studied Sub-Saharan Africa’s ICT start-up ecosystems using Isenberg’s framework [25], literature reviews, interviews with experts, and a Delphi survey to identify 41 determinants across eight domains: policy, finance, culture, market, resources, support, knowledge, and infrastructure [75]. Lee and Kwak then established priority levels for these determinants using the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) with local ICT start-up experts in Nigeria, Kenya, and South Africa [76]. Despite the increasing research on start-up ecosystems, their significance in the Sub-Saharan African context remains unclear. This study aims to fill this research gap by exploring determinants and priorities within Sub-Saharan Africa’s start-up ecosystems.

3. Study Methods

This study selected 5 interviewees per country using snowball and purposive sampling. Semi-structured interviews employed an a priori code derived from preliminary research by Lee and Kwak [76]. The content underwent a dual review by the researchers and interviewees, followed by a thematic analysis. Three coders with over 5 years of global start-up field experience participated. Coding continued until a “substantial agreement” with a Fleiss Kappa score of 0.61 or higher was achieved to ensure reliability. This qualitative study aims to investigate the underlying causes of the major determinants and priorities identified in Sub-Saharan Africa’s ICT start-up entrepreneurial ecosystems, as studied by Lee and Kwak [75,76]. Previous research has identified these determinants and priorities in three Sub-Saharan countries but has lacked an in-depth analysis of their specific root causes. Consequently, we chose a qualitative approach to thematically analyze these causes in Nigeria, Kenya, and South Africa. Our methodology includes collecting data through online, in-depth interviews and conducting a comprehensive exploration using an a priori code and thematic analysis.

3.1. Interviewees and Process

We conducted in-depth online interviews with local experts in the ICT start-up ecosystems of Nigeria, Kenya, and South Africa, from 16 to 29 September 2021. The interviews were conducted in English, the participants’ native language, and each interview lasted approximately 30 min to an hour. The study’s purpose and intent were clearly explained to the participants, and verbal consent was obtained to ensure that the results would only be used for the study. The interviews followed a semi-structured format, allowing for the inclusion of additional questions related to specific themes as needed.
A total of 15 participants, 5 from each country, were selected for the interviews, including investors, managers, representatives from supporting organizations, accelerators, and government officials involved in the ICT start-up entrepreneurial ecosystems (see Table 1). The interviewees’ information, including gender, age group, and affiliation, were disclosed based on their consent.
The interviewee selection used a mixed approach, combining snowball and purposive sampling methods. Initially, experts were openly solicited and recommended online, with a verification of their 5-year minimum experience in the local ICT start-up ecosystem. Gender and age representation aligned with local start-up demographics: female participants were included to match the low gender ratio (around 10%) of female ICT start-up founders, and participants were within the age range of 25 years to mid-40s (over 85%), mirroring the age distribution in the ecosystem.
The interviews were conducted once, with follow-up questions sent via email. This study aimed to deeply analyze the major determinants in Sub-Saharan African countries, using interview questions based on Lee’s and Kwak’s findings and customized for the start-up ecosystems of Nigeria, Kenya, and South Africa [75,76]. This study’s purpose and pre-interview questions were shared on a research website, interviews were recorded with consent, and recorded files were deleted after transcription, following IRB guidelines. Interview results underwent both an a priori code and thematic analysis. The former utilizes existing codes from studies and theories, while the latter derives parent and sub-themes from raw data.

3.2. Analysis Method

The recorded video was transcribed into Google Docs and subjected to analysis using Atlas.ti version 9, a qualitative data analysis program. This analysis was conducted in accordance with Braun’s and Clarke’s thematic analysis method [77]. Thematic analysis, a widely utilized qualitative research method, seeks to provide an in-depth and nuanced description of the collected data by identifying patterns and themes [77]. This iterative process involves multiple readings of the text or field notes, the identification of overarching themes and sub-themes, and their application to the text to uncover recurring patterns. Researchers may opt for either a theory-driven code or a data-driven code, depending on their chosen approach for interpreting the data [78].
In our study, we employed an a priori code on the previous research results and applied a thematic analysis as an inductive method. Our approach included creating codes using the a priori code for the major determinants’ priorities in ICT start-up ecosystems within each country. Following Braun’s and Clarke’s thematic analysis guidelines [20], this process involved familiarizing ourselves with the data, generating initial codes, identifying themes, reviewing themes, defining and naming themes, and producing the report. Furthermore, we conducted a member check, as recommended in the feasibility study methods proposed by Merriam and Tisdell [79], in which participants reviewed the interview results for accuracy. By following these steps, we achieved our study results.

4. Study Findings

We conducted in-depth interviews with stakeholders from three Sub-Saharan African countries and applied the thematic analysis method. After thoroughly examining all the interview transcripts, we generated initial codes. Subsequently, we conducted a comprehensive review of the generated codes and themes, eliminating duplicates or unnecessary elements. Finally, aligning with our research objectives, we identified five parent categories and ten sub-categories for each of the three countries: Nigeria, Kenya, and South Africa, as outlined in Table 2, which summarizes the key findings for each country.
In our study, we derived the research findings by incorporating direct quotations from experts in the ICT start-up ecosystem in Sub-Saharan Africa. These quotations were used to enhance transparency in our interpretations [80] and to clearly illustrate the relationship between the participants’ actual statements and the researchers’ analysis. Additionally, quoting participants verbatim strengthens the reliability of the data [81] and provides a more vivid representation of experts’ experiences. This approach fosters to a deeper understanding of complex social phenomena [82,83] and ensures to comprehensively reflect the diverse perspectives within the ICT start-up ecosystem in Sub-Saharan Africa.
The ICT start-up ecosystem in Sub-Saharan Africa is a complex environment with various determinants and stakeholders. Using direct quotations enables for a more precise examination of this complexity and ensures a balanced representation of diverse perspectives. Through this approach, this study highlights the challenges and opportunities faced by ICT start-ups in Sub-Saharan Africa and provides valuable insights for policymakers and practitioners to effectively support and develop the ecosystem.

4.1. Nigeria

4.1.1. High Priority of the Market

High Priority of the Market. The importance of the market was found to be the highest priority for the ICT start-up ecosystem in Nigeria, and there are two main reasons why the market showed high priority in the ICT start-up entrepreneurial ecosystem in Nigeria. The importance of the domestic market with a young age and a rich population, and the expansion of the market for the profits of start-ups are the reasons.
((Importance of the Domestic Market due to Its Young Age and Rich Population))
“Most of the economy right now is going to be part of the activities that is happening in the younger demographics… which is around the ages of eighteen through thirty-five.” (C)
“The start-ups, when they are starting, they start locally because of the markets. So they start locally then they expand globally.” (A)
“So although there are people there, they are just numbers… if you use 200 million, that’s the total addressable market. Where your market you can really service they are less than maybe sixty to seventy million.” (D)
((Market Expansion for Revenue))
“Early markets and customers… are important because ultimately the customers and your markets… go a long way in determining the success of your start-ups.” (A)
“The success of the Start-up in Nigeria depends on how quickly it can raise the early… the first set of runs… so you now have access to all those international investors.” (D)
“In this early stage this product doesn’t work, we can pivot to something else.” (B)

4.1.2. High Priority of Policy

The two main reasons why policies are the second-highest priority in the ICT start-up entrepreneurial ecosystem in Nigeria are that a distrust in policies is growing and start-up-friendly policies are important for the establishment and operation of ICT start-ups. Currently, there is a high degree of distrust among Nigerian ICT start-up stakeholders regarding government and policies, and policies have been prioritized as reasons for the need for improvement with start-up-friendly policies.
((Expanding Distrust in Policies))
“There have been many start-ups… that have lost millions of dollars of investment due to policy… Most start-ups are moving their headquarters out of Nigeria… into Ghana and other West African countries.” (D)
“A lot of people have learned that, waiting on government to do one thing or the other, you may probably just wait a long time.” (A)
“We are not really a policy-driven market, and we discovered who we really are after failed and mix-matched policies.” (B)
((Demand for Start-up-Friendly Policies))
“The government is coming out one policy issue, and in the old system of start-up, a particular sector of the ecosystem is lost… So they are collaborating with the government to craft a policy that creates a win-win.” (D)
“I need the legislation that should have supported me to start a company before I get to markets.” (E)
“In the start-up scene these days, a lot of actions are from the government supports… especially in the fintech ecosystem.” (C)

4.1.3. High Priority of Finance

Nigeria is the largest ICT start-up ecosystem in Sub-Saharan Africa, and although it is a country with the highest investment amount in the region, stakeholders in the start-up ecosystem understand that there is a shortage of investment in the region, including external investment. In addition, it was analyzed that the priority of finance was high for start-ups to start up and expand their growth.
((Shortage of Investment Compared to Start-ups))
“The challenge is that 70% percent of funding now in Nigeria is coming from outside… there’s a very weak participation of internal stakeholders and local investors.” (D)
“The problem we have is Finance lacks access to capital… Foreign organizations, VC firms, and investors… are all pleased to be placed in the African space.” (C)
“If you compared to the population of Nigeria, we should have three times that amount… Nigeria should have at least 50 percent of VCs money coming to Africa.” (E)
((Necessary for Business Start-up and Expanding Growth))
“For us, without seed there is no business… So seed investment, you must receive money… Without funding, you are not starting any business.” (E)
“Without finance, it’s difficult for start-ups to scale… even if it’s in creating your minimum viable products.” (A)
“Local corporates, local VC, local investors… should invest more in African companies… accelerating the advancement of other industries.” (C)

4.1.4. Low Priority of Support

It was analyzed that various support programs still exist in the ICT start-up entrepreneurial ecosystem in Nigeria, and support is being expanded further. Furthermore, it was analyzed that there are many regional online programs following the COVID-19 outbreak, and the priority is low in the start-up ecosystem due to the low demand for support programs.
((Existence of Various Programs))
“The private sector leads on supporting start-ups… creating programs to encourage enterprise developments… The government has a program for start-ups across each region of Nigeria.” (A)
“Internet and Google… makes everything… quite similar, so people don’t necessarily hold on to that support factor anymore.” (B)
“Most technology campuses… where people can stay… 24 h’ light, 25 h’ internet. It is privately provided, not by the government.” (D)
((Low Demand for Support))
“They are no longer sold out on the fact that they need to wait on the government.” (A)
“Most people are very smart in Nigeria, even though there is no support… They have registered for start-up schools in the United States online.” (D)
“The corruption in Nigeria… the support is not there. So I need to design my business in a way that I don’t need to depend on government supports.” (E)

4.1.5. Low Priority of Infrastructure

The ICT start-up ecosystem in Nigeria is primarily built around Lagos and Abuja, and these two regions in particular have fewer limitations on basic infrastructure. In addition, due to the nature of ICT start-ups, IT-related global services can be used even when accessing hardware and software, and infrastructure is considered to be less important than other major determinants.
((Fewer Limitations on Basic Infrastructure))
“There’s weak infrastructure in Nigeria… I’m not saying infrastructure is not a problem, but Nigerians have managed infrastructural problems all this while.” (D)
“I don’t need the road, I don’t need logistics… once I have my internet, have my laptop at my home, I have a light, I’m fine.” (E)
“It doesn’t take so much, especially if you’re like a Nigerian and you’re setting up the company in Nigeria. it’s very simple.” (C)
((Availability of Global Services))
“We have so many mobile internet providers… when you talk about smartphones, we have a lot of tech-savvy people.” (A)
“So when you think about software access… it’s either they create their own… or they apply for scholarships.” (D)
“Software access because it is readily available, so the importance and most of the software assess now.” (E)

4.2. Kenya

4.2.1. High Priority of Finance

Among the priorities for the ICT start-up ecosystem in Kenya, finance was found to be the most important. There are three main reasons why finance is a high priority in the ICT start-up ecosystem in Nigeria. The need for expansion of start-up and growth, the need for improvement of the financial system, and the theme of expansion of investment in impact start-ups were analyzed as reasons.
((Necessary for Business Start-up and Expanding Growth))
“The biggest challenge that most start-ups are experiencing is funding and finance in general. In Kenya, the failure rates for most start-ups result from lack of funds where founders are not able to push the project or run the business.” (F)
“If entrepreneurs don’t have more liquid cash flow, they aren’t able to finance that or even scale operations. Most start-ups fail when they are unable to raise funding.” (J)
“The ones which have gotten venture money or more professionals into their business have been able to start scaling. We’re seeing scaling happen, especially when venture money comes in.” (G)
((Necessary for Improvement of the Current Financial System))
“Start-ups are not able to provide unlike other developed countries where financial institutions fund start-ups even using intellectual property as collateral.” (F)
“They get maybe an unsecured loan using their job. The income, and then they use it to finance the start-up. In Kenya, many employees have a start-up working, even if not profitable, supported through their primary income.” (G)
“It’s mostly it’s like just taxing us, and you know putting too much tax on everything. Most of their benefits only go to international investors who are coming into the country. So Kenyans have just focused on ‘I need to get money for my business’ and overcoming all the challenges that are there.” (I)
((Expansion of Investment in Impact Start-ups))
“Historically, Kenya had many non-governmental agencies, and so many SMEs registered to support NGOs. There was already a culture of supporting impact initiatives.” (G)
“When you have a lot of these agencies based here, they also test their programs in Kenya. Impact investing is very high in Kenya. In the world, most impact investing is in the US, then India, and then Kenya.” (I)
“Kenyan market, I see so many more impact-driven start-ups. And as much as, of course, they need to make a profit, there are more impact-driven even investors in Kenya.” (J)

4.2.2. High Priority of Market

The importance of the market was also high in the ICT start-up ecosystem in Kenya. Kenya needs a market to expand revenue for establishment and growth of ICT start-ups, and the importance of the market was high due to a relatively shortage of domestic demand and active informal economy.
((Market Expansion for Revenue))
“They need early markets and customers. A lot of businesses in Kenya do not operate based on venture capital but focus on early customers to generate revenue. The market is key—if you don’t have it, even with all the support, you won’t succeed.” (I)
“An advantage of entering a new market means that you are able to get as much money first, if you are able to enter the new market with a new product.” (J)
“If you have a market, I think it’s easy for start-ups to sort of just get going and so forth. And sometimes the markets don’t require, formal registration or that.” (G)
((Need for Improvements of Domestic Demand Shortage and Informal Economy))
“Out of this 51 million, only 10 percent have good spending power. Thirty percent are middle class, and the rest cannot even spend two dollars a day.” (H)
“Over 80 percent of jobs are informal, yet they contribute around 40 percent of GDP.” (G)
“Start-ups might address specific niches, but if they can’t reach customers, it’s difficult because big multinationals act as gatekeepers.” (F)

4.2.3. High Priority of Policy

It has been confirmed that Kenya presents a relatively positive situation with respect to government policy. It was analyzed that Kenya is currently improving the environment to make it easier to start businesses by promoting the revision of the start-up law and has already promoted the start-up-friendly policies even before the legislation. The reason why the priority is high is because the importance of the two themes of improvement in a favorable environment for starting businesses and satisfaction with the government is high.
((Improvement for a Good Environment to Start Businesses))
“In Kenya, entry barriers are low, making it competitive. Technology is widely available, and many people experiment with businesses. The biggest challenge is not opening a business but closing it, as the procedure is very difficult.” (G)
“Investors for instance are very keen on the country’s policy framework on certain areas before investing to any company.” (F)
“If the policy is not enabling for the start-up, so it’s not going to be a successful ecosystem, for instance.” (J)
((Satisfaction with the Government))
“There are a lot of support in terms of you see when the government is okay. If you look at the policies that were set up in 2014 the law that has just been signed into law The start-up act.” (H)
“They start-ups with friendly legislation, so this is easier to set up your start-up and tax. Kenya is relatively good for doing business anyway…” (J)
“I have to give some credit to the government in Kenya because they’re able to come up with different laws to keep a relatively stable country. Even if there are a lot of problems, they have managed to keep things running.” (I)

4.2.4. Low Priority of Culture

Kenya is recognized as a new culture in relation to the ICT start-up ecosystem, and it was observed that the importance of culture in the ICT start-up ecosystem was low due to Kenya’s relatively conservative cultural characteristics.
((New Culture Related to ICT Start-ups))
“I can say we had the first start-up say less than ten years we’ve never had that culture of start-ups. Start-ups are being brought in by foreigners.” (H)
“It’s not been as robust, although it’s now growing.” (I)
“I think for most entrepreneurs in the ICT space, they’re almost starting off. So as an entrepreneur, you almost find your own inspiration or look for inspiration outside the country. There aren’t too many people to look forward to in the ICT space.” (G)
((Cultural Characteristics of Kenya))
“I’d rather say make a difference, but most of them are mostly interested in being able to make an income.” (G)
“The challenge is people in Kenya like security; they have a job and a business on the side, so taking big innovative risks is hard. Most of the time, people copy each other.” (I)
“At the individual level, people prefer to be employed because they have a guaranteed income and a sense of security. Employment, as much as business, is very risky.” (J)

4.2.5. Low Priority of Support

In Kenya, there are various support programs related to the ICT start-up ecosystem centered on Lagos. In particular, international organizations and NGOs are also operating and expanding various programs related to start-ups. This may be the reason why it is less important than the other determinants of the ICT start-up entrepreneurial ecosystem.
((Existence of Various Programs))
“The world is a global village, so you can get support locally or internationally for as long as you have the capabilities to pay. We have non-governmental and governmental organizations interested in start-ups or businesses venturing into social initiatives.” (F)
“In Kenya, we have a lot of incubation centers like hubs, accelerators, and programs, so most people feel that’s already there.” (I)
“I think there are many small networks of start-ups. They might not be big market events but smaller meetings.” (J)

4.3. South Africa

4.3.1. High Priority of Market

Among the priorities of the major determinants of the ICT start-up ecosystem in South Africa, the importance of the market was found to be the highest. It was analyzed that there are two main reasons why finance showed a high priority in the ICT start-up entrepreneurial ecosystem in South Africa. It was observed that the importance was high because it was necessary to improve the inequality structure and expand the market for revenue.
((Need to Improve the Structure of Inequality))
“So only a few people participate in the markets, and the rest of the country is irrelevant. Only the wealthy in cities participate in the market.” (L)
“We have a very high unemployment rate, especially among the youth. The unemployment number is probably around 70 percent, which leads more young people into the ICT space, but they lack the knowledge and skills to manage a business.” (M)
“In the past, businesses owned by black people were excluded from the economy. It’s important today for smaller businesses to supply larger businesses or sell to the government.” (N)
((Market Expansion for Revenue))
“Our domestic markets are limited due to the lack of distribution channels. In America, there are unlimited distribution channels, whereas in South Africa, markets are hindered by insufficient distribution to push products.” (L)
“South Africa doesn’t have a large domestic market, but it’s still important to most start-ups. Very few do business outside of South Africa, so start-ups need to expand into the rest of Africa.” (N)
“You need customers who are able to pay you for a good or service, so that you can reach profitability a lot quicker.” (O)

4.3.2. High Priority of Finance

South Africa is the country with the best financial system in Sub-Saharan Africa and has high accessibility and availability. The reason why finance has a high priority in South Africa is that it requires finance to expand start-ups and growth, the conservative situation in initial investment and the shortage of VC.
((Conservative Situation and Shortage of VC for Initial Investment))
“South Africa has the biggest banks in Africa but in this context, debt funding is high-risk and not suitable for start-ups especially at an early stage. The funding tools that banks have are more suitable for established businesses.” (M)
“In early-stage entrepreneurship, people aren’t willing to take a risk because not many people are willing to back at them. It’s difficult to find funding.” (K)
“South Africa doesn’t have a lot of funding aimed at businesses that are starting out, even though many businesses need some angel investment or seed grants to get started.” (N)
((Necessary for Business Start-up and Expanding Growth))
“Start-ups need finance to develop businesses. Angel investors in South Africa are more willing to take risks, and friends and family will support you if they believe in your idea.” (K)
“Access to finance has long been cited as a critical in running a business in South Africa. A shortage of finance could hold back business owners from starting or expanding their business.” (N)
“VC ties into funding for growth and expansion. To get your business off the ground, you require initial funding, typically provided by seed or angel investors via friends, family, and fools.” (O)

4.3.3. High Priority of Infrastructure

South Africa, home to MTN, a global telecommunications company, experiences high internet costs despite the presence of excellent ICT service providers. In addition to the economic disparity between rich and poor, inequality in infrastructure accessibility is also severe, and it is analyzed that ICT start-ups in South Africa are of high importance for infrastructure for the improvement for global competition.
((High Costs and Regional Disparities Related to ICT))
“Cost of data in South Africa is very high compared to the rest of the continent.” (L)
“In terms of web service access, there’s a lot that needs to be done in South Africa in terms of reducing prices for internet broadband access.” (O)
“In suburbs and major metros, technology infrastructure is readily available, but in township communities and rural areas, where most people live, there is limited internet infrastructure, especially fiber.” (M)
((Improvement for Global Competition))
“South Africa has good infrastructure to compete locally and on the continent. However, if your business wants to compete globally, then your payments…” (L)
“For B2B start-ups, they are not only competing with local tech businesses but with international organizations. The barriers to entry are quite high due to the compliance required for servicing businesses.” (M)
“While South Africa’s infrastructure may be better than most of the rest of Africa, some of the roads and things like that need to be updated.” (N)

4.3.4. High Priority of Support

South Africa, which is open to Western culture, is actively promoting the ICT start-up ecosystem and has various programs, but it was observed that its priority in the ecosystem was relatively low due to the low effectiveness of support programs.
((Existence of Various Programs))
“There’s always support in terms of funding, incubators, and accelerators to nurture entrepreneurs trying to start businesses.” (N)
“There’s always funding for people in the start-up culture, with initiatives coming into South Africa to build knowledge and support us.” (L)
“There’s a lot of support in South Africa—from Universities; Corporates, Development Agencies, Government and smaller accelerators and incubators.” (M)
((Low Effectiveness of Support Programs))
“The government programs are not doing good jobs.” (K)
“The impacts of these start-up events are nice for showing, but they don’t have valuable effects on the start-up ecosystem in South Africa.” (L)
“An event is a one-off thing; you’re not going to get much more than some contacts. A start-up event is only a small part of fixing the ecosystem.” (N)

4.3.5. Low Priority of Policy

South Africa has advanced laws and policies, but it is characterized by inefficient policy implementation. South Africa has an advanced legal system supporting smooth policy implementation. Local experts agree that laws and policies are also friendly to ICT start-ups, which is why they are less important.
((Advanced Laws and Policies))
“Policies aren’t usually an issue in South Africa because democratic institutions protect citizens and capital. South African entrepreneurs hardly worry about it.” (K)
“We have strong policies, and the government has ensured that everyone can participate, even though the infrastructure isn’t fully there.” (L)
“In South Africa, the legal system is well-defined, with a lot of certainty around how it behaves.” (O)
((Low Efficiency of Policy Implementation))
“Government encourages entrepreneurship, but it’s misguided, focusing on non-high growth entrepreneurship. The government doesn’t have enough capacity to solve social problems, so businesses often aim to solve these issues.” (K)
“Overall the policies are good—implementation of the policies always have a room for improvement.” (M)
“The government keeps coming up with policies to support businesses, but they don’t really implement them.” (N)

4.4. Analysis

4.4.1. Overall

This analysis was conducted based on the interview results derived from the research of Lee and Kwak [75,76], which modified and supplemented Isenberg’s framework [25]. In all three countries, the “market” category held a high priority, primarily driven by the need for “Market expansion for revenue”.
In Nigeria, start-up success heavily depended on rapid profit generation, with customers and market selection playing a pivotal role. Entrepreneurs emphasized early-stage pivots and market selection as crucial factors. On the other hand, Kenya focused on early customer acquisition to drive sales, which was essential for securing initial funding, particularly given the limited venture capital (VC) investments. Meanwhile, South Africa, facing lower domestic demands, sought market expansion abroad to boost its revenue. The importance of the market, in this study, aligns with numerous studies on start-ups and businesses in both leading and emerging countries [84,85,86].
Similarly, the “finance” category was identified as highly significant due to its necessity “for business initiation and growth”. In Nigeria, finance was an important factor for supporting early-stage start-ups and facilitating the expansion across various industries beyond fintech. Kenya faced high start-up failures due to funding shortages, highlighting the pivotal role of finance in start-up establishment and growth. South Africa, with its well-established financial system, also placed significant emphasis on finance for start-up initiation and expansion. These trends underscored the paramount importance of both market access and financial resources for start-up success across all three countries. Moreover, finance has been recognized as the most crucial determinant influencing the success or failure of entrepreneurs [87,88]. In particular, the availability of capital is a vital factor, and a lack of it poses significant barriers to business activities [89]. Given this context, it is possible to speculate that recent trends of Sub-Saharan African start-ups relocating their headquarters abroad is driven by investment challenges [90].
Turning to the “support” category, which was given less emphasis, the main reason cited was “the existence of various programs”. All three countries placed relatively lower priorities on this category, primarily due to the availability of support programs from global entities, including private organizations, governments, and international agencies. However, these support programs were often criticized for prioritizing the quantity of start-ups over fostering innovation and opportunity-driven entrepreneurship. A “face to the bottom” approach, where programs focus on sustaining businesses rather than promoting growth and innovation, may ultimately hinder national economic efficiency [91]. Furthermore, if these programs focus solely on survival rather than expansion, they may discourage start-ups from taking the necessary risks to scale their businesses, ultimately undermining the development of a robust entrepreneurial ecosystem [74].
Acknowledging the heterogeneity of entrepreneurial ecosystems in the existing literature [92,93], this study confirms that the ecosystem compositions are highly contextual [94,95]. Significant differences emerged among the three countries. Despite their shared emphasis on the “market”, Nigeria benefited from domestic demand, whereas Kenya and South Africa grappled with insufficient domestic demands. Kenya aimed to enhance its informal economy, while South Africa focused on addressing structural inequalities. In the “finance” category, Nigeria faced an investment shortfall relative to the number of start-ups, Kenya needed improvements in its financial system and increased investments in impact start-ups, and South Africa struggled with conservative investment tendencies and a shortage of venture capital for early-stage investments. Notably, both Nigeria and South Africa exhibited a low demand for support programs, reflecting skepticism about their effectiveness.

4.4.2. Country-Specific Analysis

Nigeria

The following analysis explores the unique aspects of each country and examines the underlying reasons for these differences. Nigeria’s ICT start-up ecosystem is heavily influenced by policy, with a growing distrust in government regulations. One interviewee remarked, “There have been many start-ups… that have lost millions of dollars of investment due to policy… Most start-ups are moving their headquarters out of Nigeria… into Ghana and other West African countries.” (D). Bruton et al. (2010) argues that while regulatory reforms are essential, their success hinges on consistent implementation and trust-building measures [96].
Unpredictable policies, such as a ban on ride-hailing services (e.g., Okada and tricycle bans), cryptocurrency restrictions, and the Twitter ban, have significantly harmed start-ups [97,98]. One entrepreneur stated, “We are not really a policy-driven market, and we discovered who we really are after failed and mix-matched policies.” (B). For example, the 2020 Okada and tricycle bans disrupted start-ups like Gokada and MAX.ng, resulting in massive layoffs, while the 2021 cryptocurrency ban created chaos in one of the world’s largest crypto markets. Additionally, the 2021 Twitter ban negatively impacted start-ups relying on the platform for marketing, with one company reporting a 20% drop in sales. Another interviewee noted, “A lot of people have learned that, waiting on government to do one thing or the other, you may probably just wait a long time.” (A). Despite the introduction of the Nigeria Startup Bill in 2022, concerns remain about its effectiveness, highlighting the need for policy stability and trust-building measures [99].

Kenya

Finance is a critical determinant in Kenya’s ICT start-up ecosystem, particularly in the context of impact investment. One interviewee explained, “When you have a lot of these agencies based here, they also test their programs in Kenya. Impact investing is very high in Kenya. In the world, most impact investing is in the US, then India, and then Kenya.” (I).
The success of M-Pesa, which revolutionized mobile banking and lifted 200,000 households out of poverty, exemplifies the power of impact investments [100,101,102]. Kenya benefits from government and international financial support, as well as private sector initiatives, like Safaricom’s Spark Fund. Another interviewee added, “Historically, Kenya had many non-governmental agencies, and so many SMEs registered to support NGOs. There was already a culture of supporting impact initiatives.” (G). Despite a global decline in start-up investment, Kenya continues its position as a leading recipient of investment in Africa, highlighting the significant role of impact investment [103]. However, the challenge remains in scaling impact start-ups into high-growth enterprises by securing later-stage funding [104,105].

South Africa

South Africa’s ICT start-up ecosystem faces challenges with a conservative investment climate and limited early-stage venture capital. One interviewee highlighted, “South Africa has the biggest banks in Africa but in this context, debt funding is high-risk and not suitable for start-ups especially at an early stage. The funding tools that banks have are more suitable for established businesses.” (M). This observation aligns with Klapper et al.’s argument that conservative financial systems in emerging markets often fail to support high-risk, high-reward ventures [106].
Despite a strong financial and academic infrastructure, 90% of funding in South Africa is sourced domestically, unlike other African countries relying on foreign capital [107]. However, South Africa lags behind Kenya, Nigeria, and Egypt in start-up investment [103]. Regional disparities exist, with Cape Town benefiting from active VC and angel investor networks, while Gauteng relies heavily on government-led fundings. Another interviewee noted, “In early-stage entrepreneurship, people aren’t willing to take a risk because not many people are willing to back at them. It’s difficult to find funding.” (K). Although the government has introduced initiatives like the J12 program and the SA-SME Fund, only 3% of start-ups manage to secure venture capital (VC) funding. This highlights the urgent need for a more stable investment environment and improved exit strategies to attract foreign investors [108,109,110]. Another interviewee emphasized, “South Africa doesn’t have a lot of funding aimed at businesses that are starting out, even though many businesses need some angel investment or seed grants to get started.” (N). These challenges highlight the importance of addressing funding gaps to foster a thriving start-up ecosystem [67,110,111].

5. Conclusions

5.1. Conclusions

The objective of this study is to explore the prioritized determinants within the ICT start-up ecosystems of Nigeria, Kenya, and South Africa, three Sub-Saharan African countries. To achieve this, we utilized a priori code and thematic analysis techniques. In-depth interviews were conducted with participants who were well-versed in their respective local start-up ecosystems. Thematic analysis was performed based on the a priori code derived from Lee’s and Kwak’s research [75,76]. We subsequently identified 10 sub-categories from the top-five parent categories in each country. The following discussion will delve into the implications of these findings for the ICT start-up entrepreneurial ecosystems in these three Sub-Saharan African nations.
First, the importance of determinants varies by country due to differences in start-up ecosystem characteristics. While market and finance were consistently high-priority determinants across all three countries, there were thematic differences. Market priorities included determinants, like domestic demand size and purchasing power variations, while finance priorities related to the advancement of financial systems and the expansion of impact investments. Support, on the other hand, was consistently a lower-priority determinant, with a low demand for government support and perceived ineffectiveness. These findings underscore the significance of market access and financial funding for start-ups, aligning with the previous research [84,85,86,87,88,89]. Notably, the role of “Support”, as defined by Beugré and Mazzarol [56,65], appeared to be of lesser importance. It was confirmed that, in emerging markets, support system often fails to meet the specific needs of start-ups [112]. In the country-specific analysis, Nigeria faces growing distrust in the government, which underscores the need for start-up-friendly policies and sustainable practices [96,99]. In Kenya, while the expansion of impact investment is a positive development, there is a need for improvements in both early-stage and long-term investments [104,105]. Lastly, in South Africa, bridging the funding gap between start-ups and investors is crucial due to the conservative investment climate [67,111].
Second, the ICT start-up ecosystems in these Sub-Saharan African countries exhibit unique growth patterns. In Nigeria, start-ups predominantly expand within the private sector due to a surplus of domestic demand, while Kenya focuses on international organizations and impact-driven start-ups. South Africa distinguishes itself with competitive start-ups, fostered by robust industry–academia research collaborations. Nevertheless, all three nations are witnessing rapid growth in their ICT start-up ecosystems. The extensive research highlights the role of improved ICT infrastructure in enhancing business flexibility [113] and promoting entrepreneurial ecosystem development [5,6]. Our findings align with Lall et al.’s assertion that tailored approaches are imperative, considering the distinctive traits of emerging economies [114]. Furthermore, it was confirmed that in emerging countries, it is essential to consider the determinants from an integrated perspective along with these priorities [115,116,117].
Third, diverse approaches to ICT start-up entrepreneurial ecosystem development cooperation in Sub-Saharan Africa are essential. However, without sufficiently developed entrepreneurial ecosystems, this potential may not materialize [118]. The African start-up ecosystem, which accounts for 0.6% of global investments [119], differs significantly from those in Silicon Valley, Europe, with factors like mobile-oriented activities, purchasing power, and age playing crucial roles in each country’s context. Rather than imposing a one-size-fits-all model from abroad, it is crucial to tailor support programs to suit the specific characteristics of the target country’s start-up ecosystem. Our research underscores the need for a comprehensive understanding of local start-up ecosystem dynamics, especially considering the multitude of existing support programs, particularly for early-stage start-ups. This aligns with the perspectives of Williams et al. and Herrington and Kew [53,54], emphasizing the importance of addressing situations where early-stage start-ups predominate. Therefore, following Weiss et al.’s emphasis on regional and ecosystem-wide considerations, support initiatives should facilitate advancement beyond the early-stage phase [16]. Additionally, as Spigel argues, it is important to consider the unique characteristics of local ecosystems when designing support initiatives [21].
This study aimed to understand the major determinants’ priorities in the ICT start-up ecosystems of Nigeria, Kenya, and South Africa, providing insights into the emerging trends and challenges in Sub-Saharan Africa. It is significant for incorporating local experts’ perspectives and cross-domain suggestions, though some researcher bias may exist due to participant selection and limited case numbers.

5.2. Contributions and Limitations

The research on Sub-Saharan Africa’s ICT start-up ecosystems is limited, making this study both academically and practically valuable. Unlike the previous research, it engaged with experts actively involved in these ecosystems, offering unique insights and advancing academic knowledge. However, the limitations include potential researcher bias, a small number of cases, and limited generalizability to broader contexts. Additionally, the restricted disclosure of author information and interview content, due to interviewee requests, may be seen as a limitation. In a rapidly changing ecosystem, some of the content may have become outdated. Furthermore, the interrelationships between these determinants should also be considered.

5.3. Directions for Future Researches

Future research should employ diverse criteria and methods to address these issues as well as provide country-specific insights. In summary, future research should explore start-up ecosystems beyond the big three Sub-Saharan African countries, including emerging ICT start-up ecosystems. Opportunities exist for quantitative research utilizing country-level data, complementing the qualitative research conducted here. Additionally, the research on ICT in sectors such as finance, agriculture, and logistics should be further detailed, and the existing studies on the limitations of support programs should incorporate additional cultural and systemic considerations.

Author Contributions

This research summarizes and develops content from the J.L.’s doctoral dissertation under the guidance of the J.K. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the University of Suwon in 2021, Fund Number 2021-0018.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Data are available upon request from researchers who meet the eligibility criteria.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Huggins, R.; Thompson, P. Entrepreneurship, innovation and regional growth: A network theory. Small Bus. Econ. 2015, 45, 103–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Kane, T.J. The Importance of Startups in Job Creation and Job Destruction. Available online: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1646934 (accessed on 1 December 2010).
  3. Schumpeter, J.A. Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy; Allen & Unwin: London, UK, 1942; pp. 154–196. [Google Scholar]
  4. Vivarelli, M. Is entrepreneurship necessarily good? Microeconomic evidence from developed and developing countries. Ind. Corp. Change 2013, 22, 1453–1495. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Del Giudice, M.; Straub, D. IT and Entrepreneurism: An On-Again, Off-Again Love Affair or a Marriage? Editor’s Comments. MIS Q. 2011, 35, iii–viii. [Google Scholar]
  6. Tavakoli, A. Impact of information technology on the entrepreneurship development. Adv. Environ. Biol. 2013, 7, 1421–1426. [Google Scholar]
  7. Acs, Z.J.; Autio, E.; Szerb, L. National systems of entrepreneurship: Measurement issues and policy implications. Res. Policy 2014, 43, 476–494. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Autio, E.; Kenney, M.; Mustar, P.; Siegel, D.; Wright, M. Entrepreneurial innovation: The importance of context. Res. Policy 2014, 43, 1097–1108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Szerb, L.; Lafuente, E.; Horváth, K.; Páger, B. The relevance of quantity and quality entrepreneurship for regional performance: The moderating role of the entrepreneurial ecosystem. Reg. Stud. 2019, 53, 1308–1320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Bruton, G.D.; Ahlstrom, D.; Obloj, K. Entrepreneurship in emerging economies: Where are we today and where should the research go in the future. Entrep. Theory Pract. 2008, 32, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Sydow, A.; Cannatelli, B.L.; Giudici, A.; Molteni, M. Entrepreneurial workaround practices in severe institutional voids: Evidence from Kenya. Entrep. Theory Pract. 2022, 46, 331–367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Disrupt Africa. African Tech Startups Funding Report 2021. Available online: https://disrupt-africa.com/funding-report/ (accessed on 1 December 2022).
  13. Karombo, T. All You Need to Know About Africa’s Four (or Maybe Six) Unicorns. Quartz. 13 July 2021. Available online: https://qz.com/africa/2032255/africas-4-1b-fintech-unicorns-could-pave-the-way-for-startups/ (accessed on 1 December 2021).
  14. Cantù, C.; Giorgia, S.; Tzannis, A. Exploring the role of business relationships in start-ups’ life cycles: Evidences from the Italian context. IMP J. 2018, in press. [CrossRef]
  15. GTCAF (GreenTec Capital Africa Foundation). Tracing the SUCCESS & FAILURE of African Startups. Available online: https://weetracker.com/the-better-africa-report/ (accessed on 1 December 2020).
  16. Weiss, T.; Perkmann, M.; Phillips, N. Scaling technology ventures in Africa: New opportunities for research. Innovation 2021, 24, 552–567. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Atiase, V.Y.; Mahmood, S.; Wang, Y.; Botchie, D. Developing entrepreneurship in Africa: Investigating critical resource challenges. J. Small Bus. Enterp. Dev. 2017, in press. [CrossRef]
  18. Maroufkhani, P.; Wagner, R.; Ismail, W.K.W. Entrepreneurial ecosystems: A systematic review. J. Enterprising Communities People Places Glob. Econ. 2018, in press. [CrossRef]
  19. David-West, O.; Umukoro, I.O.; Onuoha, R.O. Platforms in Sub-Saharan Africa: Startup models and the role of business incubation. J. Intellect. Cap. 2018, in press. [CrossRef]
  20. George, G.; Kotha, R.; Parikh, P.; Alnuaimi, T.; Bahaj, A. Social structure, reasonable gain, and entrepreneurship in Africa. Strateg. Manag. J. 2016, 37, 1118–1131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Spigel, B.; Harrison, R. Toward a process theory of entrepreneurial ecosystems. Strateg. Entrep. J. 2018, 12, 151–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Drakopoulou Dodd, S.; Anderson, A.R. Mumpsimus and the mything of the individualistic entrepreneur. Int. Small Bus. J. 2007, 25, 341–360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Spilling, O.R. The entrepreneurial system: On entrepreneurship in the context of a mega-event. J. Bus. Res. 1996, 36, 91–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Cohen, B. Sustainable valley entrepreneurial ecosystems. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2006, 15, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Isenberg, D. How to start an entrepreneurial revolution. Harv. Bus. Rev. 2010, 88, 40–50. [Google Scholar]
  26. Wadee, A.A.; Padayachee, A. Higher Education: Catalysts for the development of an entrepreneurial ecosystem, or… are we the weakest link? Sci. Technol. Soc. 2017, 22, 284–309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Salamzadeh, A.; Kirby, D.A. New venture creation: How start-ups grow? AD-Minister 2017, 30, 9–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Bae, C.; Kim, B. The dominant factors affecting the performance of Technology-based Start-ups in the Korean Business Incubators. J. Korean Entrep. Soc. 2017, 12, 35–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Ries, E. The Lean Startup: How Today’s Entrepreneurs Use Continuous Innovation to Create Radically Successful Businesses; Currency; Crown Business: New York, NY, USA, 2011; pp. 154–196. [Google Scholar]
  30. Shin, S.; Kwon, K. A Study on Effects of Experience Characteristics of Entrepreneurs on Firm Performances: Focusing on Technology(ICT)-based Start-ups. J. Korean Entrep. Soc. 2021, 16, 185–205. [Google Scholar]
  31. Salamzadeh, A. New venture creation: Controversial perspectives and theories. Econ. Anal. 2015, 48, 101–109. [Google Scholar]
  32. Lee, C. A Study on Improvement of Special Approved Textbook Adoption System with Delphi Method. Korean Assoc. Pract. Arts Educ. 2014, 27, 229–243. [Google Scholar]
  33. Song, A.K. The Digital Entrepreneurial Ecosystem—A Critique and Reconfiguration. Small Bus. Econ. 2019, 53, 569–590. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. GSMA. Digital Entrepreneurship in Kenya 2014. Available online: https://www.gsma.com/solutions-and-impact/connectivity-for-good/mobile-for-development/gsma_resources/digital-entrepreneurship-in-kenya-2014-2/ (accessed on 1 December 2023).
  35. Sussan, F.; Acs, Z.J. The digital entrepreneurial ecosystem. Small Bus. Econ. 2017, 49, 55–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Kong, H. Korean Start-up Ecosystem based on Comparison of Global Countries: Quantitative and Qualitative Research. Korean Soc. Bus. Ventur. 2019, 14, 101–116. [Google Scholar]
  37. Kuckertz, A.; Prochotta, A. What’s hot in entrepreneurship research 2018? Hohenh. Entrep. Res. Brief 2018, 4, 1–7. [Google Scholar]
  38. Alvedalen, J.; Boschma, R. A critical review of entrepreneurial ecosystems research: Towards a future research agenda. Eur. Plan. Stud. 2017, 25, 887–903. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Audretsch, D.B.; Belitski, M. Entrepreneurial ecosystems in cities: Establishing the framework conditions. J. Technol. Transf. 2017, 42, 1030–1051. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Auerswald, P.E. Enabling Entrepreneurial Ecosystems: Insights from Ecology to Inform Effective Entrepreneurship Policy; Kauffman Foundation Research Series on City, Metro, and Regional Entrepreneurship; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  41. Mack, E.; Mayer, H. The evolutionary dynamics of entrepreneurial ecosystems. Urban Stud. 2016, 53, 2118–2133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Motoyama, Y.; Knowlton, K. From resource munificence to ecosystem integration: The case of government sponsorship in St. Louis. Entrep. Reg. Dev. 2016, 28, 448–470. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Qian, S.; Miao, C. How perception, knowledge, and cultural values influence entrepreneurs’ fear: A multi-level investigation. Acad. Entrep. J. 2016, 22, 29. [Google Scholar]
  44. Stam, E.; Bosma, N. Local policies for high-growth firms. In The Oxford Handbook of Local Competitiveness; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2015; pp. 286–305. [Google Scholar]
  45. Stam, E.; Spigel, B. Entrepreneurial ecosystems. USE Discuss. Pap. Ser. 2016, 16, 1–15. [Google Scholar]
  46. Guillén, M.F. 2030: How Today’s Biggest Trends Will Collide and Reshape the Future of Everything; St. Martin’s Press: New York, NY, USA, 2020; pp. 154–196. [Google Scholar]
  47. Ratten, V.; Jones, P. Bringing Africa into entrepreneurship research. In African Entrepreneurship; Palgrave Macmillan: Cham, Switzerland, 2018; pp. 9–27. [Google Scholar]
  48. Edo, S.; Okodua, H.; Odebiyi, J. Internet adoption and financial development in Sub-Saharan Africa: Evidence from Nigeria and Kenya. Afr. Dev. Rev. 2019, 31, 144–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Startup Genome. The Global Startup Ecosystem Report 2022. Available online: https://startupgenome.com/reports (accessed on 1 December 2023).
  50. Gomes, E.; Vendrell-Herrero, F.; Mellahi, K.; Angwin, D.; Sousa, C.M. Testing the self-selection theory in high corruption environments: Evidence from African SMEs. Int. Mark. Rev. 2018, in press. [CrossRef]
  51. Frontier Economics. Early Stage Investment in Sub-Saharan Africa’s Tech Sector a Report Prepared for Africa Technology Business Network. Front. Econ. Netw. 2018, in press.
  52. Hersman, E. Mobilizing Tech Entrepreneurs in Africa: Innovations Case Narrative: iHub. Innov. Technol. Gov. Glob. 2012, 7, 59–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Herrington, M.; Kew, P. Global Entrepreneurship Monitor South African Report 2017/18; University of Cape Town: Cape Town, South Africa, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  54. Williams, C.C.; Martinez–Perez, A.; Kedir, A.M. Informal entrepreneurship in developing economies: The impacts of starting up unregistered on firm performance. Entrep. Theory Pract. 2017, 41, 773–799. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Briter Bridge. Africa’s Investment Report 2021. Available online: https://briterbridges.com/africainvestmentreport2021 (accessed on 1 December 2022).
  56. Beugré, C.D. Building Entrepreneurial Ecosystems in Sub-Saharan Africa: A Quintuple Helix Model; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2016; pp. 154–196. [Google Scholar]
  57. Startup Blink. Global Startup Ecosystem Index. Available online: https://report.startupblink.com/ (accessed on 1 December 2023).
  58. Isenberg, D. The entrepreneurship ecosystem strategy as a new paradigm for economic policy: Principles for cultivating entrepreneurship. Present. Inst. Int. Eur. Aff. 2011, 1, 1–13. [Google Scholar]
  59. Kim, S.; Cho, M.; Rhee, M. A study on Singapore Startup Ecosystem using regional transformation of Isenberg (2010). Asia-Pac. J. Bus. Ventur. Entrep. 2020, 15, 47–65. [Google Scholar]
  60. Jones, O.; Holt, R. The creation and evolution of new business ventures: An activity theory perspective. J. Small Bus. Enterp. Dev. 2008, in press. [CrossRef]
  61. Igwe, P.A.; Icha-Ituma, A. A Review of Ten Years of African Entrepreneurship Research. In Research Handbook on Entrepreneurship in Emerging Economies: A Contextualized Approach; Michèle, E., Jenny, G., Jonathan, M., Paresha, S., Eds.; Edward Elgar Publishers: Cheltenham, UK, 2020; pp. 325–353. [Google Scholar]
  62. Cao, Z.; Shi, X. A systematic literature review of entrepreneurial ecosystems in advanced and emerging economies. Small Bus. Econ. 2021, 57, 75–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Lafuente, E.; Szerb, L.; Ács, Z.J. The Entrepreneurship Paradox: The Role of the Entrepreneurial Ecosystem on Economic Performance in Africa. In The Entrepreneurial Ecosystem: A Global Perspective; Springer Nature Switzerland: Cham, Switzerland, 2023; pp. 103–146. [Google Scholar]
  64. Manya, V.O. Dynamics of a Start-Up Ecosystem in Africa: A Case Study of Yabacon in Nigeria. Governance and Development Policy (GDP). 18 December 2020. Available online: http://hdl.handle.net/2105/55896 (accessed on 1 December 2020).
  65. Mazzarol, T. Growing and Sustaining Entrepreneurial Ecosystems: What They Are and the Role of Government Policy. Available online: https://research-repository.uwa.edu.au/en/publications/growing-and-sustaining-entrepreneurial-ecosystems-what-they-are-a (accessed on 1 December 2020).
  66. Sheriff, M.; Muffatto, M. The present state of entrepreneurship ecosystems in selected countries in Africa. Afr. J. Econ. Manag. Stud. 2015, in press.
  67. Anwana, E.; Anwana, T. Enhancing the entrepreneurship framework in South Africa. Int. J. Entrep. 2020, 24, 1–13. [Google Scholar]
  68. Ajah, E.O.; Ononiwu, C. Mechanisms Fostering Tech Start-up Emergence in the Nigerian Digital Ecosystem. In Proceedings of the Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems (PACIS), Dubai, United Arab Emirates, 12–14 July 2021; pp. 123–130. [Google Scholar]
  69. Althalathini, D.; Tlaiss, H.A. Of resistance to patriarchy and occupation through a virtual bazaar: An institutional theory critique of the emancipatory potential of Palestinian women’s digital entrepreneurship. Entrep. Reg. Dev. 2023, 35, 956–978. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Ukanwa, I.; Xiong, L.; Wasim, J.; Galloway, L. Microfinance and micropreneurship in rural South-East Nigeria: An exploration of the effects of institutions. Entrep. Reg. Dev. 2022, 34, 650–667. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Molla, A.; Biru, A. The evolution of the Fintech entrepreneurial ecosystem in Africa: An exploratory study and model for future development. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 2023, 186, 122123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Dzimba, E.; van der Poll, J.A. Disruptive innovation at the base-of-the-pyramid: Negotiating the missing links. J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2022, 8, 171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Madzikanda, B.; Li, C.; Dabuo, F.T. Barriers to development of entrepreneurial ecosystems and economic performance in Southern Africa. Afr. J. Sci. Technol. Innov. Dev. 2022, 14, 936–946. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Biru, A.; Gilbert, D.; Arenius, P. Unhelpful help: The state of support programmes and the dynamics of entrepreneurship ecosystems in Ethiopia. In The Dynamics of Entrepreneurial Ecosystems; Routledge: Abingdon, UK, 2021; pp. 130–152. [Google Scholar]
  75. Lee, J.; Kwak, J. A Study on the Determinants of Entrepreneurial Ecosystem for Digital (ICT) Start-ups in Sub-Saharan Africa. J. Korean Assoc. Afr. Stud. 2021, 62, 109–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Lee, J.; Kwak, J. A Study on the Prioritizing Determinants of Entrepreneurial Ecosystem for Digital (ICT) Start-ups in Sub-Saharan Africa. J. Korean Career·Entrep. Bus. Assoc. 2021, 5, 129–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Braun, V.; Clarke, V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual. Res. Psychol. 2006, 3, 77–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Taylor, G.W.; Ussher, J.M. Making sense of S&M: A discourse analytic account. Sexualities 2001, 4, 293–314. [Google Scholar]
  79. Merriam, S.B.; Tisdell, E.J. Qualitative Research: A Guide to Design and Implementation; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2015; pp. 154–196. [Google Scholar]
  80. Maxwell, J.A. Qualitative Research Design: An Interactive Approach; Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  81. Patton, M.Q. Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods, 3rd ed.; Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2002. [Google Scholar]
  82. Denzin, N.K.; Lincoln, Y.S. Handbook of Qualitative Research; Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 1994. [Google Scholar]
  83. Geertz, C. The Interpretation of Cultures: Selected Essays; Basic Books: New York, NY, USA, 1973. [Google Scholar]
  84. Ahamat, A.; Sin, G.K.W. Developing a business start-up model for technopreneurs. Int. J. Technoentrep. 2022, 4, 198–218. [Google Scholar]
  85. Brush, C.G.; Ceru, D.J.; Blackburn, R. Pathways to entrepreneurial growth: The influence of management, marketing, and money. Bus. Horiz. 2009, 52, 481–491. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Cassar, G. The financing of business start-ups. J. Bus. Ventur. 2004, 19, 261–283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Bellavitis, C.; Filatotchev, I.; Kamuriwo, D.S.; Vanacker, T. Entrepreneurial finance: New frontiers of research and practice: Editorial for the special issue embracing entrepreneurial funding innovations. Ventur. Cap. 2017, 19, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Boudreaux, C.J.; Nikolaev, B. Capital is not enough: Opportunity entrepreneurship and formal institutions. Small Bus. Econ. 2019, 53, 709–738. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Madzikanda, B.; Li, C.; Dabuo, F.T. What determines the geography of entrepreneurship? A comparative study between Sub-Saharan Africa and South-East Asia. J. Entrep. Innov. Emerg. Econ. 2021, 7, 246–262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. African Business Angel Network. ABAN 2023 Angel Investment Survey Report. Available online: https://abanangels.org (accessed on 1 December 2023).
  91. Du, K.; O’Connor, A. Entrepreneurship and advancing national-level economic efficiency. Small Bus. Econ. 2018, 50, 91–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Brown, R.; Mason, C. Looking inside the spiky bits: A critical review and conceptualisation of entrepreneurial ecosystems. Small Bus. Econ. 2017, 49, 11–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Scheidgen, K. Degrees of integration: How a fragmented entrepreneurial ecosystem promotes different types of entrepreneurs. In The Dynamics of Entrepreneurial Ecosystems; Routledge: Abingdon, UK, 2021; pp. 76–101. [Google Scholar]
  94. Miles, M.P.; Morrison, M. An effectual leadership perspective for developing rural entrepreneurial ecosystems. Small Bus. Econ. 2020, 54, 933–949. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Schrijvers, M.; Stam, E.; Bosma, N. Figuring it out: Configurations of high-performing entrepreneurial ecosystems in Europe. Reg. Stud. 2024, 58, 1096–1110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Bruton, G.D.; Ketchen Jr, D.J.; Ireland, R.D. Entrepreneurship as a solution to poverty. J. Bus. Ventur. 2013, 28, 683–689. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Honjo, Y. Do profitable start-up firms grow faster? Evidence from Colombia. Cuad. Econ. 2018, 37, 727–754. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Patterson, W.; Ambrosini, V. Configuring absorptive capacity as a key process for research intensive firms. Technovation 2015, 36, 77–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Honig, B.; Karlsson, T. Institutional forces and the written business plan. J. Manag. 2004, 30, 29–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Daniel, M. Everything You Need to Know About East African Startup Landscape [2019 Update]. Available online: https://ventureburn.com/2019/03/everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-east-african-startup-landscape/ (accessed on 1 December 2023).
  101. Jack, W.; Suri, T. Risk sharing and transactions costs: Evidence from Kenya’s mobile money revolution. Am. Econ. Rev. 2014, 104, 183–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Ndemo, B.; Weiss, T. Making sense of Africa’s emerging digital transformation and its many futures. Afr. J. Manag. 2017, 3, 328–347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Partech. 2025 Africa Tech Venture Capital. Available online: https://partechpartners.com/africa-reports/2024-africa-tech-venture-capital-report (accessed on 1 February 2025).
  104. Aulet, W.; Murray, F. A Tale of Two Entrepreneurs: Understanding Differences in the Types of Entrepreneurship in the Economy. Available online: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2259740 (accessed on 1 December 2023).
  105. Lerner, J. Boulevard of Broken Dreams: Why Public Efforts to Boost Entrepreneurship and Venture Capital Have Failed—And What to Do About It; Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ, USA, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  106. Klapper, L.; Laeven, L.; Rajan, R. Entry regulation as a barrier to entrepreneurship. J. Financ. Econ. 2006, 82, 591–629. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Ventureburn. Ventureburn Tech Startup Survey Presentation. Available online: https://ventureburn.com/2017/11/ventureburn-startup-survey-presentation/ (accessed on 1 December 2023).
  108. SAVACA (South African Venture Capital and Private Equity Association). SAVCA 2021 Venture Capital Industry Survey. Available online: https://savca.co.za/resources/ (accessed on 1 December 2023).
  109. SMESA (SME South Africa). Available online: https://sasmefund.co.za/ (accessed on 1 December 2022).
  110. UNCTAD. Information Economy Report 2012. Available online: https://unctad.org/webflyer/information-economy-report-2012 (accessed on 1 December 2023).
  111. Herrington, M.; Kew, J.; Kew, P. South Africa: The crossroads–a goldmine or a time bomb. In GEM South Africa Report; DUNE: Philadelphia, PA, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  112. Coenen, M.; Kok, R.A. Workplace flexibility and new product development performance: The role of telework and flexible work schedules. Eur. Manag. J. 2014, 32, 564–576. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Autio, E.; Rannikko, H. Retaining winners: Can policy boost high-growth entrepreneurship? Res. Policy 2016, 45, 42–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Lall, S.A.; Chen, L.W.; Roberts, P.W. Are we accelerating equity investment into impact-oriented ventures? World Dev. 2020, 131, 104952. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Albert, M.N.; Couture, M.M. The support to an entrepreneur: From autonomy to dependence. Sage Open 2013, 3, 2158244013492779. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Durrah, O.; Ghouse, S.M.; Alkhalaf, T. Motivations and behaviours of rural women entrepreneurs in Oman. Int. J. Gend. Entrep. 2024, 16, 402–421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Ghouse, S.M.; Durrah, O.; McElwee, G. Rural women entrepreneurs in Oman: Problems and opportunities. Int. J. Entrep. Behav. Res. 2021, 27, 1674–1695. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Minniti, M.; Naudé, W.; Stam, E. Is productive entrepreneurship getting scarcer? A reflection on the contemporary relevance of Baumol’s typology of entrepreneurship. In Handbook of Research on Entrepreneurship and Conflict; Edward Elgar Publishing: Cheltenham, UK, 2024; pp. 18–44. [Google Scholar]
  119. CB Insights. State of Venture 2024 Report. Available online: https://www.cbinsights.com/research/report/venture-trends-2024/ (accessed on 1 February 2025).
Table 1. Participant list of in-depth interview.
Table 1. Participant list of in-depth interview.
NumberCountrySexAge GroupAffiliation
ANigeria
(5)		M30ICT Start-up
BM30ICT Start-up
CM30Start-up Supporting Agency
DM30Start-up Investment
EM30Start-up Journal
FKenya
(5)		M30ICT Start-up
GM20ICT Start-up
HM30ICT Government
IW20Start-up Journal
JM30Start-up Investment
KSouth Africa
(5)		M30ICT Start-up
LW30ICT Start-up
MM40Start-up Journal
NM30Start-up Supporting Agency
OM30Start-up Investment
Table 2. Summary of findings.
Table 2. Summary of findings.
CountryCategorySub-Category
NigeriaHigh Priority of MarketImportance of the Domestic Market due to Its Young Age and Rich Population
Market Expansion for Revenue
High Priority of PolicyExpanding Distrust in Policies
Demand for Start-up-Friendly Policies
High Priority of FinanceShortage of Investment Compared to Start-ups
Necessary for Business Start-up and Expanding Growth
Low Priority of SupportExistence of Various Programs
Low Demand for Support
Low Priority of InfrastructureFewer Limitations on Basic Infrastructure
Availability of Global Services
KenyaHigh Priority of FinanceNecessary for Business Start-up and Expanding Growth
Necessary for Improvement of the Current Financial System
Expansion of Investment in Impact Start-ups
High Priority of MarketMarket Expansion for Revenue
Need for Improvements of Domestic Demand Shortage and Informal Economy
High Priority of PolicyImprovement for a Good Environment to Start Businesses
Satisfaction with the Government
Low Priority of CultureNew Culture Related to ICT Start-ups
Cultural Characteristics of Kenya
Low Priority of SupportExistence of Various Programs
South AfricaHigh Priority of MarketNeed to Improve the Structure of Inequality
Market Expansion for Revenue
High Priority of FinanceConservative Situation and Shortage of VC for Initial Investment
Necessary for Business Start-up and Expanding Growth
High Priority of InfrastructureHigh Costs and Regional Disparities Related to ICTImprovement for Global Competition
Low Priority of SupportExistence of Various Programs
Low Effectiveness of Support Programs
Low Priority of PolicyAdvanced Laws and Policies
Low Efficiency of Policy Implementation
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Lee, J.; Kim, J. Analyzing Determinants’ Priorities of Entrepreneurial Ecosystems for ICT Start-Ups in Sub-Saharan Africa: A Path Toward Sustainable Development. Sustainability 2025, 17, 2044. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17052044

AMA Style

Lee J, Kim J. Analyzing Determinants’ Priorities of Entrepreneurial Ecosystems for ICT Start-Ups in Sub-Saharan Africa: A Path Toward Sustainable Development. Sustainability. 2025; 17(5):2044. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17052044

Chicago/Turabian Style

Lee, Jonghyun, and Jisong Kim. 2025. "Analyzing Determinants’ Priorities of Entrepreneurial Ecosystems for ICT Start-Ups in Sub-Saharan Africa: A Path Toward Sustainable Development" Sustainability 17, no. 5: 2044. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17052044

APA Style

Lee, J., & Kim, J. (2025). Analyzing Determinants’ Priorities of Entrepreneurial Ecosystems for ICT Start-Ups in Sub-Saharan Africa: A Path Toward Sustainable Development. Sustainability, 17(5), 2044. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17052044

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop