INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025

Catalysts of Change: Evaluating the Impact of Government-Funded

Digital Innovation Hubs on SME Competitiveness in Nigeria

Oluchi Jane Maduka

Carolina University

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2025.910000704

Received: 02 November 2025; Accepted: 10 November 2025; Published: 21 November 2025

ABSTRACT

This study examines the transformative role of government-funded Digital Innovation Hubs (DIHs) in

enhancing the competitiveness of Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs) in Nigeria. As Nigeria advances its

digital economy agenda, DIHs have been introduced as strategic mechanisms to stimulate innovation,

strengthen entrepreneurial capacity, and expand digital participation among SMEs. Despite their growing

relevance, limited empirical attention has been devoted to understanding how DIHs impact SME performance

in developing contexts. Drawing on secondary data including government policy reports, SME surveys, and

development agency publications, this paper explores the impact of DIHs on SME digital adoption,

productivity, and innovation capacity across diverse regions in Nigeria. Guided by Innovation Systems Theory,

the Inclusive Innovation Framework, and the Resource-Based View (RBV), the study evaluates DIH outcomes

through systemic coordination, equity, and capability-building lenses. Findings indicate that DIHs facilitate

knowledge diffusion, skill enhancement, and digital adoption, contributing to improved market access and

productivity among beneficiary SMEs. However, benefits remain uneven, with DIHs concentrated in urban and

southern regions, limiting equitable participation for rural, informal-sector, and northern-based enterprises. The

study recommends expanding DIH coverage, strengthening institutional coordination, and implementing

culturally and regionally responsive digital inclusion strategies. This research contributes to emerging

scholarship on innovation infrastructure in developing economies and offers practical implications for

policymakers, development practitioners, and SME stakeholders seeking to build inclusive and competitive

digital ecosystems.

Keywords: Digital Innovation Hubs, SMEs, Inclusive Innovation, Innovation Systems Theory, Digital

Transformation, Nigeria, Policy Analysis

INTRODUCTION

Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs) are the cornerstone of Nigeria’s economy, contributing approximately

48% of the country’s GDP and employing over 80% of its private-sector workforce (SMEDAN, 2023). Yet

despite their economic weight, Nigerian SMEs face persistent barriers to competitiveness, including limited

access to digital infrastructure, restricted financing, and deficits in technological capability. In an era

dominated by digital economies, these constraints impede their ability to compete locally and globally.

Recognizing these challenges, the Nigerian government established Digital Innovation Hubs (DIHs), publicly

funded centers that provide access to digital tools, incubation support, training, and knowledge-sharing

platforms. The initiative aligns with the National Digital Economy Policy and Strategy (2020–2030) and seeks

to accelerate the digital transformation of SMEs, fostering innovation-led growth across all sectors. However,

as the United Nations Development Programme (2022) notes, the distribution and impact of DIH remain

uneven. Northern and rural regions continue to experience limited access due to inadequate infrastructure and a

lack of awareness of digital opportunities.

While previous research has examined digital ecosystems and startup innovation, empirical attention to DIHs

and their direct influence on SMEs remains scarce. This study fills that gap by addressing three critical

questions:

Page 8643

ww w .rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025

1. How do DIHs influence SME digital adoption, productivity, and innovation capacity in Nigeria?

2. To what extent are DIHs accessible to SMEs in marginalized regions and informal sectors?

3. What institutional mechanisms can optimize DIH effectiveness for inclusive SME growth?

By examining these questions, this study positions DIHs as potential catalysts for structural transformation,

exploring both their successes and the persistent inequities that shape their outcomes. Ultimately, it

underscores the critical role of inclusive digital infrastructure and policy alignment in ensuring that

technological progress translates into equitable and sustainable economic development across Nigeria.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Innovation Systems Theory

Innovation Systems Theory, developed by scholars such as Lundvall (1992) and Freeman (1987), posits that

innovation arises from interactions among firms, institutions, and policy networks rather than from isolated

organizational efforts. Within this framework, DIHs function as nodes that connect SMEs with technological

infrastructure, research institutions, and government programs. Their effectiveness depends on systemic

coordination, knowledge diffusion, and institutional coherence (AfDB, 2023). In Nigeria, however, fragmented

implementation and uneven policy alignment undermine these linkages, particularly in underdeveloped

regions.

Inclusive Innovation Framework

The Inclusive Innovation framework (Foster & Heeks, 2013) emphasizes equity, access, and participation in

innovation systems. It challenges traditional models that favor urban or elite actors, advocating instead for

innovation that benefits marginalized communities. Applying this lens to DIHs reveals whether these hubs

promote equitable opportunities, especially for women entrepreneurs, youth-led startups, and informal

enterprises. In Nigeria’s case, many DIHs have not yet achieved this inclusivity, as programs often concentrate

in urban centers where infrastructure and digital literacy are stronger.

Cultural Context and Innovation Behavior in Nigeria

Beyond systemic and equity-based perspectives, cultural dynamics significantly shape digital adoption and

innovation behavior in emerging economies. Nigeria’s diverse socio-cultural environment, characterized by

communal business norms, religious and regional identities, hierarchical social structures, and traditional

knowledge systems, influences how entrepreneurs perceive and engage with innovation resources (Idemudia,

2021). Research suggests that cultural norms in sub-Saharan Africa can moderate entrepreneurial risk-taking,

knowledge sharing, and trust in formal institutions, thereby affecting the effectiveness of state-led digital

interventions (Nwagwu, 2020). For instance, gendered expectations in some regions restrict female digital

entrepreneurship, while collectivist community structures in others enhance informal knowledge networks but

reduce engagement with formal hubs. Recognizing cultural diversity is therefore essential for designing DIH

programs that align with localized entrepreneurial realities and support equitable participation across Nigeria’s

geopolitical zones.

Resource-Based View (RBV)

The RBV, articulated by Barney (1991) and Wernerfelt (1984), focuses on firm-level competitive advantage

derived from valuable, rare, inimitable, and non-substitutable resources. DIHs strengthen SMEs by providing

digital tools, technical training, and managerial knowledge, resources that build internal capacities for

innovation and productivity. The degree to which SMEs can leverage DIH offerings directly affects their

sustained competitiveness and ability to scale.

Empirical Evidence on DIHs and SME Competitiveness

Page 8644

ww w .rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025

Empirical studies show that DIHs enhance SME innovation, particularly through digital training, mentoring,

and incubation. For instance, the OECD (2021) found that DIHs in Europe significantly improved digital

adoption rates, while the World Bank (2020) observed similar patterns in Nigerian pilot regions. Yet, the

UNDP (2022) reports that benefits remain uneven, with most DIHs concentrated in Lagos and Abuja. These

studies underscore the need for localized, evidence-based analysis to understand DIHs’ inclusive potential.

Figure 1. Conceptual Framework: DIHs as Catalysts for SME Competitiveness

This framework demonstrates how DIHs bridge macro-level systems and micro-level enterprise performance

through inclusive and resource-enhancing mechanisms.

Note. Framework developed by the author based on Innovation Systems Theory (Lundvall, 1992; Freeman,

1987), Inclusive Innovation (Foster & Heeks, 2013), and the Resource-Based View (Barney, 1991; Wernerfelt,

1984).

Following the conceptual framework in Figure 1, which illustrates how DIHs enable SME competitiveness

through systemic, inclusive, and resource-based mechanisms, Table 1 provides a comparative synthesis of

empirical and conceptual studies on DIHs and SMEs. This comparative summary highlights key patterns in the

literature while identifying persistent contextual gaps, particularly the limited evidence from African and

Nigerian settings, thereby reinforcing the need for localized analysis.

Table 1. Comparative Summary of Empirical Studies on DIHs and SMEs

Table 1 summarizes key empirical and conceptual studies on Digital Innovation Hubs (DIHs) and Small and

Medium Enterprises (SMEs), outlining research focus, methodologies, and major findings while identifying

knowledge gaps relevant to the Nigerian context.

Author/Year Country/Region Methodology Focus Area Key Findings

Identified Gaps

Page 8645

ww w .rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025

OECD

(2021)

EU

Mixed

Methods

SME-DIH

DIHs

improve Limited insights

Interactions digital adoption and for

innovation capacity. contexts.

African

UNDP

(2022)

Nigeria

Policy

Review

Inclusion

and

Accessibility limited

participation.

Highlights uneven Lacks

DIH reach and quantitative

rural performance data.

World Bank Nigeria

(2020)

Diagnostic

Analysis

Digital

Economy

Readiness

DIHs support SME Regional

growth and digital disparities

not

skills.

explored.

Foster

Heeks

(2013)

& India & Africa

Conceptual

Inclusive

Innovation

Framework

equity-driven

innovation diffusion. in Nigeria.

for Requires

empirical testing

Source: Author’s compilation based on OECD (2021), UNDP (2022), World Bank (2020), and Foster and

Heeks (2013).

METHODOLOGY

Research Design

This study adopts a qualitative, exploratory research design centered on secondary data analysis and content-

based policy evaluation. The qualitative approach is suitable because it allows for an in-depth examination of

contextual and institutional dynamics surrounding Digital Innovation Hubs (DIHs) and SME competitiveness.

The design draws upon three theoretical perspectives: Innovation Systems Theory, Inclusive Innovation, and

the Resource-Based View (RBV) to interpret the interconnections between systemic structures, equity

mechanisms, and firm-level outcomes.

Sampling Method and Sample Selection

A purposive sampling strategy was employed to identify and select relevant documents that provide rich

insights into the relationship between DIHs and SME competitiveness in Nigeria. The selection process

focused on three categories of sources:

1. Government policy documents that articulate national digital and innovation strategies (e.g., National

Digital Economy Policy and Strategy 2020–2030, NITDA Implementation Reports).

2. International development reports from multilateral organizations such as the World Bank, UNDP, and

the African Development Bank that assess Nigeria’s digital economy, innovation infrastructure, and

SME performance.

3. Academic and peer-reviewed literature that explores DIHs, inclusive innovation, and SME

competitiveness in developing contexts.

In total, 25 documents were analyzed: 8 government and institutional reports, 6 international development

assessments, and 11 peer-reviewed journal articles. This sample was sufficient to ensure thematic saturation

and triangulation across diverse perspectives.

Data Sources

Data were drawn from:

 Government publications (e.g., SMEDAN SME Surveys, NITDA Digital Economy Reports).

Page 8646

ww w .rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025

 Development agency reports (e.g., World Bank Nigeria Digital Economy Diagnostic [2020]; UNDP Digital

Inclusion and Innovation Policy Brief [2022]).

 Academic literature covering innovation systems, inclusive development, and SME transformation in

emerging economies (e.g., Lundvall, 1992; Foster & Heeks, 2013; Barney, 1991).

Analytical Framework and Data Analysis

Data were analyzed using a three-tiered analytical framework, guided by qualitative content analysis and

thematic coding.

1. Systemic Mapping: Identification of DIH distribution, governance mechanisms, and institutional linkages

within Nigeria’s innovation ecosystem.

2. Comparative Performance Analysis: Examination of SME outcomes, digital adoption, productivity, and

innovation in DIH-supported versus non-DIH regions using available SMEDAN and NBS datasets.

3. Equity and Inclusion Assessment: Evaluation of accessibility for marginalized SME groups (e.g.,

women-led, youth-driven, and informal sector enterprises) across Nigeria’s geopolitical zones.

Qualitative themes were derived inductively from the data, supported by document coding matrices that

highlighted relationships between innovation infrastructure, regional disparities, and SME performance.

Triangulation of multiple data types increased the validity of interpretations.

Ethical Considerations

Since this study relies solely on secondary data, ethical approval was not required. However, ethical rigor was

maintained through accurate citation, acknowledgment of original data sources, and transparency in reporting

limitations. Care was taken to avoid regional bias and ensure balanced representation of diverse perspectives.

LIMITATIONS

Several limitations were acknowledged. First, variations in the quality and granularity of available data limited

the ability to draw precise causal inferences. Second, the absence of longitudinal datasets constrained the

temporal analysis of DIH performance. Finally, differences in regional reporting standards may have

influenced comparative assessments. Nonetheless, cross-referencing multiple data sources and applying

theoretical triangulation helped mitigate these limitations and strengthened the reliability of findings.

FINDINGS

DIH Distribution and Systemic Mapping

Analysis of government and development reports shows that DIHs are concentrated primarily in Lagos, Abuja,

and Port Harcourt—regions with robust digital infrastructure and economic activity. Northern and rural states

lag due to infrastructural deficits and limited awareness campaigns.

Key Observation: Funding distribution correlates more strongly with economic density than with equity

targets, suggesting the need for decentralization of DIH governance.

Figure 2. Geographic Distribution of DIHs in Nigeria

(Description): A heat map illustrating higher DIH concentrations in the South-West and South-South regions

(dark zones) and sparse representation in the North-East and North-West (light zones).

Comparative SME Performance

Findings from SMEDAN and NBS datasets reveal that SMEs with DIH access exhibit higher digital adoption

rates, improved market reach, and greater innovation outcomes.

Page 8647

ww w .rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025

Metric

DIH-Supported SMEs

Non-DIH SMEs

Difference

+31%

Digital Adoption

Productivity Growth

73%

56%

42%

38%

+18%

New Product Development

Workforce Skill Upgrade

48%

61%

27%

33%

+21%

+28%

These differences illustrate the measurable advantage that DIHs confer on SMEs in terms of competitiveness

and innovation.

Equity and Accessibility

Despite positive outcomes, access remains uneven. Rural enterprises, women-led SMEs, and informal

operators face persistent barriers, including low digital literacy, limited internet connectivity, and minimal

exposure to DIH programs. While inclusion-oriented initiatives exist, they are sporadically implemented and

lack standardized monitoring mechanisms. Cultural norms further contribute to uneven DIH access and

participation. In several northern and rural communities, traditional business networks and conservative gender

roles shape entrepreneurial engagement patterns, limiting participation in formal technology programs.

Informal market structures, reliance on peer-learning, and skepticism toward government initiatives also

influence adoption behavior. These cultural dynamics suggest that awareness and training efforts must be

tailored to reflect localized socio-economic realities and trust systems.

DISCUSSION

Institutional Governance, Funding, and Regional Coordination of DIHs

The effectiveness of Nigeria’s Digital Innovation Hubs (DIHs) ultimately depends on coherent institutional

governance, transparent funding mechanisms, and regionally balanced coordination. While DIHs are jointly

supported by the National Information Technology Development Agency (NITDA), the Ministry of

Communications, Innovation and Digital Economy, and state-level partners, the absence of a unified

governance framework has led to duplication of roles and inconsistent resource allocation. Fragmented funding

structures, often reliant on short-term grants or donor-driven initiatives, undermine the long-term sustainability

of hubs, particularly outside major cities. Establishing an integrated governance model that links DIHs to

broader innovation and SME policies under the National Digital Economy Policy and Strategy (NDEPS,

2020–2030) would ensure institutional coherence and enable regional hubs to function as complementary,

rather than competing, entities. Strengthened coordination across geopolitical zones would also promote

resource parity and align DIHs with Nigeria’s economic diversification goals under the Economic Recovery

and Growth Plan (ERGP).

DIHs as Nodes in Nigeria’s Innovation System

Drawing from Innovation Systems Theory, DIHs serve as structural nodes within Nigeria’s broader innovation

ecosystem, facilitating knowledge exchange among government agencies, academic institutions, and private

enterprises. However, their potential is constrained by limited regional collaboration and weak institutional

linkages between research centers and SME networks. To foster systemic efficiency, Nigeria must transition

from a centralized model toward a regionally adaptive framework where state governments co-finance DIHs

based on local innovation priorities. This approach would not only enhance diffusion of technology and

knowledge but also strengthen accountability and stakeholder ownership, key determinants of system-wide

resilience and sustainability.

Inclusion and Equity Imperatives

The Inclusive Innovation Framework emphasizes that equitable participation is as vital as technological

advancement. Although DIHs have successfully expanded digital literacy in urban centers, their limited

Page 8648

ww w .rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025

penetration into rural and underserved communities highlights ongoing disparities in access and awareness. To

close these gaps, policies must target women, youth, and informal-sector entrepreneurs through mobile DIH

units, community-based innovation labs, and localized partnerships with civil society groups. For example,

collaboration with organizations such as SheCodes Africa, Tech4Dev, and Women in Tech Nigeria could

strengthen female participation, while youth-oriented programs like NITDA’s Digital States Initiative could

accelerate digital skill development in non-urban regions. Embedding such initiatives into DIH programming

would align directly with the inclusivity pillars of NDEPS and enhance Nigeria’s broader human-capital

objectives.

Cultural Dimensions and Innovation Engagement

Cultural norms significantly mediate engagement with DIHs. In high-context societies like Nigeria, trust,

hierarchy, and community endorsement shape how entrepreneurs interact with formal innovation structures.

Rural enterprises, for instance, often rely on informal apprenticeship systems rather than institutionalized

training. Integrating DIHs with existing cultural and market systems, such as trade associations, cooperatives,

and faith-based organizations, can increase legitimacy and adoption. Moreover, designing gender-sensitive and

multilingual training programs can counteract exclusionary norms that restrict women’s and youth

participation in certain regions. These culturally adaptive strategies reinforce the Inclusive Innovation principle

that sustainable transformation must reflect the socio-cultural realities of its beneficiaries.

Resource-Based View and SME Capability Development

At the firm level, the Resource-Based View highlights that DIHs enhance SMEs’ internal competencies by

providing access to digital tools, managerial mentoring, and innovation ecosystems. However, to ensure these

resources translate into sustained competitiveness, DIHs must move beyond short-term skill building to long-

term capability accumulation. Embedding DIH training into vocational institutions, technical colleges, and

university entrepreneurship programs would institutionalize innovation learning. Furthermore, introducing

outcome-based funding models, where resource allocation is tied to measurable SME growth indicators, could

improve efficiency and accountability across DIHs.

Policy and Managerial Implications

Integrating DIHs with Nigeria’s innovation and diversification strategies offers a dual advantage: it positions

SMEs at the forefront of industrial modernization while aligning public investments with national priorities.

Policymakers should develop a unified performance dashboard to evaluate DIH outcomes using indicators

such as regional inclusivity, job creation, and SME innovation rates. Managers of SMEs, in turn, should view

DIHs not merely as training centers but as long-term strategic partners for digital transformation and market

expansion. Strengthened collaboration among government agencies, academia, and the private sector will be

critical to achieving sustainable and equitable innovation growth.

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This study reaffirms that government-funded Digital Innovation Hubs (DIHs) are transformative instruments

for advancing Nigeria’s digital economy, yet their impact remains uneven across regions and demographic

groups. By situating DIHs within the frameworks of Innovation Systems Theory, Inclusive Innovation, and the

Resource-Based View, this paper has illustrated that competitiveness arises not only from technological

infrastructure but also from effective governance, equitable inclusion, and sustained capability development.

Therefore, these theoretical perspectives reveal that successful innovation ecosystems rely on both structural

and human factors. The Innovation Systems approach underscores coordination among institutions; the

Inclusive Innovation lens prioritizes equitable participation; and the Resource-Based View situates

competitiveness within firm capabilities. Integrating these dimensions provides a holistic foundation for

evaluating and redesigning DIHs as inclusive engines of transformation. DIHs have demonstrably improved

digital adoption, productivity, and innovation among SMEs; however, their centralization in economically

dominant cities risks exacerbating regional and social inequalities.

Page 8649

ww w .rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025

To align with Nigeria’s National Digital Economy Policy and Strategy (2020–2030) and Economic

Diversification Agenda, Strengthening DIHs aligns with national goals and with Africa’s broader digital

transformation strategy, which emphasizes innovation-driven industrialization and inclusive participation. By

positioning DIHs as regional knowledge networks, Nigeria can play a leading role in achieving SDG targets on

decent work, innovation, and sustainable industrial growth. DIHs must evolve into coordinated, inclusive, and

sustainable networks. Achieving this requires stronger institutional governance, decentralized funding models,

and policy synchronization between NITDA, SMEDAN, and state innovation councils. Integrating gender-

responsive and youth-centered frameworks will ensure that digital transformation contributes to both economic

and social development. Importantly, embedding DIHs into existing cultural and community systems will

enhance trust, local ownership, and participation, key ingredients for lasting impact. Ultimately, the future of

Nigeria’s innovation ecosystem will depend on embedding digital inclusion into the nation’s development

DNA. When DIHs evolve from donor-dependent projects into self-sustaining innovation ecosystems, they will

not only transform SMEs but also define Nigeria’s standing as a continental leader in digital entrepreneurship,

inclusive development, and knowledge-driven growth.

POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

1. Integrated Governance Framework: Create a National DIH Council under NITDA to coordinate

funding, performance monitoring, and regional integration.

2. Decentralized Funding and Co-Management: Encourage state–private partnerships to finance and

manage DIHs according to local development needs.

3. Gender, Youth, and Rural Inclusion: Expand outreach through mobile DIHs, multilingual training,

and collaboration with community and women-led organizations.

4. Alignment with National Policies: Ensure DIH objectives explicitly support NDEPS pillars (digital

skills, innovation, and infrastructure) and ERGP diversification targets.

5. Outcome-Based Evaluation: Establish a public DIH performance dashboard tracking inclusivity, SME

productivity, and innovation outcomes.

6. Sustainable Financing: Introduce revolving innovation funds and public–private partnerships to ensure

long-term viability beyond donor cycles.

7. Cultural Adaptation: Integrate local trade associations, cooperative societies, and traditional leadership

structures into DIH engagement models.

Future Research Directions

Further research should adopt mixed and longitudinal designs to measure DIHs’ medium- and long-term

contributions to SME growth, employment, and innovation diffusion. Comparative regional analyses across

sub-Saharan Africa could identify best practices for inclusive innovation governance, while qualitative studies

involving women and rural entrepreneurs would illuminate lived experiences behind the statistics.

In sum, Nigeria’s DIHs hold immense potential to drive inclusive digital transformation, but realizing this

promise depends on institutional coherence, social inclusivity, and policy alignment. When governed

sustainably and designed equitably, DIHs can transcend their pilot status to become enduring engines of

innovation, productivity, and national competitiveness.

REFERENCES

1. Adeyeye, A. D. (2022). Exploring the dynamics of innovation for inclusive development systems: A

study of the Nigerian growth enhancement support scheme [Doctoral dissertation, Stellenbosch

University].

Stellenbosch

University

Institutional

Repository.

https://scholar.sun.ac.za/handle/10019.1/127004

2. AfDB. (2023). African digital economy report: Leveraging innovation for inclusive growth. African

Development Bank Group. https://www.afdb.org

3. Barney, J. B. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management,

17(1), 99–120. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639101700108

Page 8650

ww w .rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025

4. Casadella, V., & Tahi, S. (2025). Inclusive national innovation systems: Rethinking institutions in the

light

of

inclusion

imperatives.

Journal

of

Institutional

Economics,

21,

e2.

https://doi.org/10.1017/S1744137425000025

5. Díaz-Arancibia, J., Hochstetter-Diez, J., Bustamante-Mora, A., Sepúlveda-Cuevas, S., Albayay, I., &

Arango-López, J. (2024). Navigating digital transformation and technology adoption: A literature review

from small and medium-sized enterprises in developing countries. Sustainability, 16(14), 5946.

https://doi.org/10.3390/su16145946

6. Foster, C., & Heeks, R. (2013). Conceptualising inclusive innovation: Modifying systems of innovation

frameworks to understand diffusion of new technology to low-income consumers. European Journal of

Development Research, 25(3), 333–355. https://doi.org/10.1057/ejdr.2013.10

7. Freeman, C. (1987). Technology policy and economic performance: Lessons from Japan. Pinter

Publishers.

8. George, G., McGahan, A. M., & Prabhu, J. (2012). Innovation for inclusive growth: Towards a

theoretical framework and a research agenda. Journal of Management Studies, 49(4), 661–683.

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2012.01048.x

9. Hofstede

Insights.

(2020).

Country

comparison:

Nigeria.

Hofstede

Insights.https://www.researchgate.net/publication/386275239

10. Idemudia, E. C. (2021). The digital transformation of African societies: Socio-cultural impacts and

innovation adoption. Springer.

11. Lundvall, B.-Å. (1992). National systems of innovation: Towards a theory of innovation and interactive

learning. Pinter Publishers.

12. Nelson, R. R. (1993). National innovation systems: A comparative analysis. Oxford University Press.

13. Nigerian Communications Commission. (2020). National Digital Economy Policy and Strategy (2020-

2030). http://hdl.handle.net/1885/277385

14. Nwagwu, W. (2020). Digital innovation and informal-sector entrepreneurship in Africa: Cultural and

structural

influences.

Information

Development,

36(4),

576-589.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0266666920906521

15. OECD. (2021). Digital innovation hubs: Supporting SMEs in the digital transformation. OECD

Publishing. https://www.oecd.org/industry/digital-innovation-hubs.htm

16. SMEDAN. (2023). National survey of micro, small and medium enterprises (MSMEs) in Nigeria. Small

and Medium Enterprises Development Agency of Nigeria. https://smedan.gov.ng

17. UNCTAD. (2019). Innovation, diversification and inclusive development in Africa. United Nations

Conference on Trade and Development. https://unctad.org/system/files/official-document/ser-rp-

2017d2_en.pdf

18. UNDP. (2022). Digital inclusion and innovation in Nigeria: Policy brief. United Nations Development

Programme. https://www.undp.org

19. Wernerfelt, B. (1984). A resource-based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 5(2), 171–180.

https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250050207

20. World Bank.

https://documents.worldbank.org/en/publication/documents-

reports/documentdetail/687791591483678938/nigeria-digital-economy-diagnostic

(2020).

Nigeria digital economy diagnostic.

World

Bank

Group.

Page 8651

ww w .rsisinternational.org