Seeing through digitalization! The influence of entrepreneurial networks on market participation among smallholder farmers in Tanzania. The mediating role of digital technology

Figures & data

Figure 1. Conceptual framework.

Figure 1 shows the relationships between the dimensions of strategic entrepreneurial networking and market participation when mediated by digital technology. According (Hussain et al., 2017) to conceptual framework must provide the details of the variables used. Note: solid lines denote direct effects and a dotted line denotes the mediation effect

Table 1. Measurement items

Construct	Items
Exchange networks (ENW)	Network relationships allow efficient exchange of resources (Enw1)
	Network relationships lead to sound economic exchange among members (Enw2)
	Network relationships allow the effective exchange of knowledge base (Enw3)
	There is a high similarity between the core capabilities of each partner (Enw4)
	The cultures of network partners are compatible with each other (Enw5)
	The operating styles of network partners are compatible (Enw6)
	We strive to achieve exchange through working together (Enw7)
Communication networks (CNW)	We share proprietary marketing information (Cnw1)
	We exchange internal information timely for each other (Cnw2)
	We share information about environments and competitors (Cnw3)
	We share internal decisions with partners in networks (Cnw4)
	Information is accessible and available in a format that can be easily utilized (Cnw5)
	Information is often instinctively exchanged (Cnw6)
Social networks (SNW)	Social networks enable me to interact with my friends more quickly socially (Snw1)
	Social networks improve my social life (I keep social relationships stronger) (Snw2)
	Social networks give me greater control over my social interactions (Snw3)
	Social networks improve the quality of my social relationships (Snw4)
	Social networks enhance my effectiveness on the social relationship (Snw5)
	Social networks make it easier to maintain my social relationships (Snw6)
	It is easy for me to perform tasks using the social network site (Snw7)
	It is easy to get social networks to do what I want them to do (Snw8)
Digital technology (DTE)	I use digital technologies to understand our customers better (Dte1)
	I use digital channels to provide customer service (Dte2)
	Technology allows me to link customers and my operations in new ways (Dte3)
	I have launched new business model based on digital technologies (Dte4)
	I use digital technologies to add value to our existing products and services (Dte5)
Market participation (MPA)	The road conditions from my farms to market are well improved (Mpa1)
	Transport service in my farm help to access the market on time (Mpa2)
	Availability of on-time market information service (Mpa3)
	Availability of value-adding activities (grading, processing, and packaging) (Mpa4)
	Availability of on-time information to develop pro-active responses (Mpa5)

Table 2. The characteristics of smallholder farmers

Characteristics	Category	Frequency	%
Sex	Female	83	27.85
	Male	215	72.15
Total		298	100
Farm Size	0–1 Ha	33	11.07
	1–2 Ha	78	26.17
	2–3 Ha	99	33.22
	3 − 4 Ha	88	29.54
Total		298	100
Farming experience	1–5 years	47	15.77
	5–10 years	78	26.17
	10–15 years	83	27.85
	15–20 years	54	18.12
	>20 years	36	12.09
Total		298	100
Educational Level	Certificate level	187	62.75
	Diploma	57	19.12
	Bachelor degree	51	17.11
	Postgraduate degree	3	1.02
Total		298	100
Household Size	0–2	43	14.42
	2–4	45	15.10
	4–6	64	21.47
	>6	146	49.01
Total		298	100

Figure 2. Confirmatory factor analysis.

Table 3. Validity and reliability

Construct	Items	Cronbach’s α value	Factor Loadings	AVE	CR	MSV
ENW	Enw1	0.916	0.867	0.648	0.928	0.260
	Enw2		0.754
	Enw3		0.786
	Enw4		0.816
	Enw5		0.786
	Enw6		0.853
	Enw7		0.765
CNW	Cnw1	0.861	0.784	0.606	0.902	0.168
	Cnw2		0.742
	Cnw3		0.757
	Cnw4		0.834
	Cnw5		0.714
	Cnw6		0.832
SNW	Snw1	0.794	0.743	0.688	0.946	0.260
	Snw2		0.734
	Snw3		0.723
	Snw4		0.845
	Snw5		0.882
	Snw6		0.909
	Snw7		0.876
	Snw8		0.899
DTE	Dte1	0.827	0.786	0.820	0.958	0.137
	Dte2		0.945
	Dte3		0.905
	Dte4		0.956
	Dte5		0.925
MPA	Mpa1	0.833	0.911	0.775	0.945	0.176
	Mpa2		0.820
	Mpa3		0.829
	Mpa4		0.914
	Mpa5		0.923

Table 4. Discriminant validity

Construct	MEAN	SD	DTE	ENW	CNW	SNW	MPA
DTE	3.76	0.69	0.905
ENW	4.05	0.72	0.270	0.805
CNW	4.12	0.89	0.370	0.110	0.778
SNW	4.08	0.76	0.260	0.510	0.170	0.830
MPA	4.03	0.69	0.180	0.310	0.410	0.420	0.881

Note; Diagonal lines denote the square roots of AVE values

Figure 3. Standardized path analysis.

Table 5. Regression output

Hypotheses	Relationships			Standardized estimates	Unstandardized estimates	Critical ratio	P-value	Decision
H1	ENW →		DTE	0.548	0.511	7.942	***	Supported
H2	CNW →		DTE	0.661	0.601	5.953	***	Supported
H3	SNW →		DTE	0.478	0.399	2.556	0.041	Supported
H4	DTE →		MPA	0.645	0.613	7.677	***	Supported

***implies p-value is < 0.001

Table 6. Process mediation output for entrepreneurial exchange networks

Relationship	Direct effect	SE	t-value	p-value	LLCI	ULCI
ENW → MPA	0.3387	0.0552	6.1406	0.000	0.2300	0.4474
ENW → DTE	0.4182	0.0600	6.9660	0.000	0.2999	0.5365
DTE → MPA	0.3504	0.0556	6.3079	0.000	0.2410	0.4599
Relationship	Indirect effect	BootSE			BootLLCI	BootULCI
ENW → DTE → MPA	0.1466	0.0386			0.0766	0.2278

Note: *** p < 0.001

Table 7. Process mediation output communication for entrepreneurial networks

Relationship	Direct effect	SE	t-value	p-value	LLCI	ULCI
CNW → MPA	0.3287	0.0588	5.5873	0.000	0.2127	0.4446
CNW → DTE	0.5225	0.0551	9.4751	0.000	0.4138	0.6312
DTE → MPA	0.3349	0.0601	5.5708	0.000	0.2165	0.4534
Relationship	Indirect effect	BootSE			BootLLCI	BootULCI
CNW → DTE → MPA	0.1750	0.0448			0.0962	0.2712

Note: *** p < 0.001

Table 8. Process mediation output for social entrepreneurial networks

Relationship	Direct effect	SE	t-value	p-value	LLCI	ULCI
SNW → MPA	0.1984	0.0575	3.4499	0.0007	0.0851	0.3118
SNW → DTE	0.3046	0.0596	5.1124	0.000	0.1872	0.4220
DTE → MPA	0.4684	0.0609	7.6896	0.000	0.3484	0.5885
Relationship	Indirect effect	BootSE			BootLLCI	BootULCI
SNW → DTE → MPA	0.1427	0.0331			0.0811	0.2111

Note: *** p < 0.001

Hussain, T., Abbas, J., Li, B., Aman, J., & Ali, S. (2017). Natural resource management for the world’s highest park: Community attitudes on sustainability for central Karakoram national park, Pakistan. Sustainability, 9(6), 972. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9060972

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Data availability statement

Data are available upon a reasonable request