Social networks and technology adoption: Evidence from mobile money in Uganda

Figures & data

Table 1. Main Reasons for Adoption or Non-Adoption

Variable	Mean	Std. Dev.
(a) Mobile money adoption and use Ever used mobile money	0.435	(0.496)
Have a registered MM account	0.293	(0.455)
Have a registered active account	0.263	(0.440)
(b) Why non adopters did not adopt Registration not successful	0.214	(0.411)
No agent where I live or work	0.173	(0.375)
Get services via agent/someone’s account	0.188	(0.391)
Do not have an ID for registration	0.031	(0.173)
Do not have SIM card of MM provider	0.077	(0.267)
No money for registration/transaction cost	0.077	(0.267)
Others	0.240	(0.427)
(c) Why adopters adopted Send money and pay bills	0.597	(0.491)
Receive money	0.786	(0.410)
Someone/agent recommended	0.124	(0.330)
Others	0.114	(0.318)

Notes: The first column reports the average number of individuals for each reason of adoption or non-adaptation of mobile money and the second column reports the standard deviation. There are 880 adopters (individuals with registered accounts) and 388 non adopters (individuals who have never tried to sign up for a mobile money account). Respondents were asked to choose from a list of reasons why they adopted, or did not adopt.

Table 2. Direct Evidence on Network effects

Variable	Mean	Std. Dev.
(a) Source of information on MM services Media sources	0.818	(0.386)
Relatives/friends	0.116	(0.320)
Field agents of mobile money	0.058	(0.234)
(b) Source that convinced adoption Was convinced by a friend	0.202	(0.402)
Was convinced by a business partner/other	0.207	(0.328)
Was convinced by a family member	0.591	(0.492)
Was convinced by an agent	0.085	(0.280)

Source: Authors’ compilation from the FII survey of Uganda for 2013

Table 3. Descriptive Statistics Adoption Status

Variable		Registered MM			Active MM
	All	Adopt	Not Adopt	Adopt	Not Adopt
Age (years)	34	35	33**	35	33**
	(0.134)	(0.441)	(0.319)	(0.468)	(0.310)
Married	0.537	0.553	0.53	0.559	0.529
	(0.499)	(0.017)	(0.011)	(0.018)	(0.011)
Male	0.455	0.509	0.433**	0.503	0.438**
	(0.498)	(0.017)	(0.110)	(0.018)	(0.011)
Urban residence	0.163	0.297	0.108**	0.311	0.111**
	(0.373)	(0.015)	(0.007)	(0.016)	(0.007)
Employed	0.833	0.873	0.817**	0.874	0.818**
	(0.373)	(0.011)	(0.008)	(0.012)	(0.008)
Above poverty line	0.296	0.485	0.218**	0.497	0.225**
	(0.457)	(0.016)	(0.009)	(0.018)	(0.009)
Own a mobile phone	0.625	0.966	0.483**	0.97	0.502**
	(0.484)	(0.006)	(0.011)	(0.006)	(0.011)
Own active SIM card	0.647	0.977	0.510**	0.978	0.529**
	(0.478)	(0.005)	(0.011)	(0.005)	(0.011)
Registered bank account	0.119	0.272	0.055**	0.278	0.062**
	(0.323)	(0.015)	(0.005)	(0.016)	(0.005)
Secondary education	0.362	0.585	0.269**	0.602	0.276**
	(0.481)	(0.017)	(0.010)	(0.017)	(0.010)

Notes: Standard deviations are in brackets. ***p < 0.01, **p < 0.05, *p < 0.1. T-test of equality of the characteristics of adopters and non-adopters. For all tests of means or proportions, the null hypothesis is that the proportions/means are equal between adopters and non-adopters.

Table 4. Marginal effect of social networks on mobile money adoption and use

	Ever used MM		Have registered MM		Have active MM
Variables	(1)	(2)	(3)	(4)	(5)	(6)
Family/relatives and friends	0.712***	0.462***	0.509***	0.283***	0.451***	0.242***
	(0.071)	(0.068)	(0.073)	(0.073)	(0.070)	(0.071)
Social media	0.782***	0.465***	0.616***	0.324***	0.557***	0.284***
	(0.066)	(0.064)	(0.068)	(0.069)	(0.065)	(0.067)
Field agents/promoters	0.948***	0.557***	0.720***	0.365***	0.651***	0.319***
	(0.072)	(0.070)	(0.073)	(0.073)	(0.070)	(0.072)
Individual/household factors	No	Yes	No	Yes	No	Yes
Observations	3,000	2,675	3,000	2,675	3,000	2,675

Note: Robust standard errors are in brackets. ***p < 0.01, **p < 0.05, *p < 0.1. The social network variable is measured by the source of information about mobile money services. The dependent variables are coded one if the individual has used mobile money services before, has a registered mobile money account, has an active mobile money account and zero otherwise. The base category for information networks is no knowledge about mobile money services. Results in Column 2, 4 and 6 control for individual characteristics including the quadratic of age, employment, marital status, residential type, gender, phone/sim card ownership, income level and education attainment.

Table 5. Marginal effect of social networks on mobile money adoption and use by bank account ownership

	Ever used MM		Have registered MM		Have active MM
Variables	(1)	(2)	(3)	(4)	(5)	(6)
Family/relatives and friends	0.216***	0.610***	0.056**	0.436***	0.043*	0.340**
	(0.029)	(0.146)	(0.025)	(0.156)	(0.024)	(0.158)
Social media	0.219***	0.653***	0.090***	0.580***	0.072***	0.569***
	(0.019)	(0.089)	(0.015)	(0.088)	(0.014)	(0.094)
Field agents/promoters	0.343***	0.620***	0.146***	0.555***	0.111***	0.598***
	(0.042)	(0.120)	(0.042)	(0.121)	(0.041)	(0.129)
Individual/household factors	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Observations	2,404	271	2,404	271	2,404	271

Note: Robust standard error in brackets. ***p < 0.01, **p < 0.05, *p < 0.1. The base category for information networks is no knowledge about mobile money services. Results control for individual characteristics including the quadratic of age, employment, gender, marital status residential type, phone/sim card ownership, income level and education attainment. Results of individuals with no formal bank account are presented in Columns 1, 3 and 5 and for those with bank accounts in Columns 2, 4 and 6.

Table 6. Regression estimates of network coefficients including individual characteristics

Variables	(1)	(2)	(3)
Network size	−0.228***	−0.196***	−0.158***
	(0.024)	(0.021)	(0.041)
Social network	0.324***	0.327***	0.137***
	(0.033)	(0.032)	(0.044)
Social network squared	0.098***	0.081***	0.056***
	(0.012)	(0.011)	(0.013)
Age-education fixed effects	Yes	Yes	Yes
District fixed effects	Yes	Yes	Yes
Constant	−0.129	−0.238	−0.066
	(0.150)	(0.146)	(0.163)
Observations	2,675	2,675	2,675
R-squared	0.421	0.413	0.413

Note: Robust standard errors are in brackets. ***p < 0.01, **p < 0.05, *p < 0.1. The social network variable is measured by interacting quality and quantity of networks. Results control for individual characteristics including the quadratic of age, employment, residential type, phone/sim card ownership, income level, marital status and gender.

Table A1. Marginal effect of social networks on mobile money adoption and use by gender

	Ever used MM		Have registered MM		Have active MM
Variables	Female	Male	Female	Male	Female	Male
Family/relatives and friends	0.449***	0.461***	0.321***	0.224**	0.280***	0.184*
	(0.088)	(0.108)	(0.098)	(0.107)	(0.096)	(0.104)
Social media	0.459***	0.446***	0.349***	0.287***	0.311***	0.245***
	(0.085)	(0.101)	(0.094)	(0.098)	(0.092)	(0.094)
Field agents/promoters	0.558***	0.527***	0.420***	0.293***	0.360***	0.264***
	(0.095)	(0.109)	(0.101)	(0.106)	(0.099)	(0.102)
Individual/household factors	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Observations	1,416	1,259	1,416	1,259	1,416	1,259

Note: Robust standard error in brackets. ***p < 0.01, **p < 0.05, *p < 0.1.

The base category for information network is no knowledge about mobile money services. Results control for individual characteristics including quadratic of age, employment, residential type, phone/sim card ownership, marital status, education attainment, income level and bank account ownership.

Table A2. Marginal effect of social networks on mobile money adoption and use by education attainment

	Ever used MM		Have registered MM		Have active MM
Variables	(1)	(2)	(3)	(4)	(5)	(6)
Family/relatives and friends	0.443***	0.552***	0.246***	0.353**	0.209***	0.307*
	(0.076)	(0.154)	(0.069)	(0.171)	(0.065)	(0.172)
Social media	0.443***	0.560***	0.272***	0.424***	0.236***	0.382**
	(0.072)	(0.149)	(0.065)	(0.164)	(0.061)	(0.166)
Field agents/promoters	0.503***	0.694***	0.311***	0.464***	0.275***	0.414**
	(0.082)	(0.156)	(0.072)	(0.172)	(0.068)	(0.174)
Individual/household factors	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Observations	1,648	1,027	1,648	1,027	1,648	1,027

Note: Robust standard error in brackets. ***p < 0.01, **p < 0.05, *p < 0.1.

The base category for information network is no knowledge about mobile money services. Results control for individual characteristics including quadratic of age, employment, residential type, phone/sim card ownership, marital status, gender, income level and bank account ownership. Results of individuals with less than secondary education are presented in Column 1, 3 and 5. For those with at least secondary education in Column 2, 4 and 6.

Table A3. Marginal effect of social networks on mobile money adoption and use by income level

	Ever used MM		Have registered MM		Have active MM
Variables	Below	Above	Below	Above	Below	Above
Family/relatives and friends	0.468***	0.457***	0.263***	0.329**	0.236***	0.240
	(0.077)	(0.139)	(0.074)	(0.162)	(0.071)	(0.164)
Social media	0.439***	0.536***	0.293***	0.398**	0.253***	0.343**
	(0.074)	(0.134)	(0.070)	(0.155)	(0.066)	(0.157)
Field agents/promoters	0.518***	0.657***	0.336***	0.432***	0.282***	0.395**
	(0.083)	(0.144)	(0.076)	(0.164)	(0.073)	(0.166)
Individual/household factors	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Observations	1,849	826	1,849	826	1,849	826

Note: Robust standard errors are in brackets. ***p < 0.01, **p < 0.05, *p < 0.1.

The social network variable is measured by the source of information about mobile money services. The dependent variables are coded one if the individual has ever used mobile money services, have a registered mobile money account, have an active mobile money account and zero otherwise. The base category for information network is no knowledge about mobile money services. Results control for individual characteristics including quadratic of age, employment, residential type, phone/sim card ownership, income level and education attainment.