Effect of Social Innovation and Social Value on Poverty Alleviation in Zamfara State

Effect of Social Innovation and Social Value on Poverty Alleviation in Zamfara State

¹BASHIR Muhammad Nahuche, ²ABDUL Sabur Hassan, ³BUKOYE Ademola Ismail

¹Federal Polytechnic Kaura Namoda., Business Administration and Management study. 

²Federal polytechnic, Kaura Namoda, Department of Business Administration,

³Federal polytechnic, Kaura Namoda, Department of liberal studies.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.51244/IJRSI.2024.1106044

Received: 07 June 2024; Revised: 15 June 2024; Accepted: 20 June 2024; Published: 22 July 2024

ABSTRACT 

This study examined the effect of social innovation and social value on poverty alleviation in Zamfara state. The major objective of the study is to assess the relationship between social innovation and social value on poverty alleviation in Zamfara state. A survey method of study was adopted. Data was collected through a closed ended questionnaires which was design in a five linker scale. The data was analyzed using SMART –PLS3 model and the hypotheses were tested using bootstrapping model to run the analysis. The researchers anchored the study on Schumpeterian Theory of Innovation and Social Action Theory. The study revealed that there is a strong, positive, and statistically significant relationship between social innovation and poverty alleviation in Zamfara state. And it equally revealed that there is a negative and statistically significant relationship between social value and poverty alleviation in Zamfara state. Therefore the researchers recommended that organizations and policymakers should focus on creating enabling environment for social innovation to strive for better poverty alleviation in Zamfara state.

Key word: Social Innovation, Social Value, Poverty, poverty Alleviation and Social Action.

BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY

 The concept of social innovation is relatively new, its application has been around since antiquity. The idea has become more prevalent in the public, private, household, and third sectors during the past few decades. The topic of social innovation is steadily garnering more attention in terms of public policy. Innovation is occurring in many fields as a result of the quick changes in ideas, competitiveness, and technology (Setyawan, et’al, 2022).

Recently, the idea of social value has garnered substantial attention across various sectors, including business, government and non-profit organizations. Social value refers to the broader impacts of actions and decisions on society, encompassing economic, environmental and social dimensions (Yasir, et’al , 2021). Unlike traditional measures that focus solely on financial outcomes, social value emphasizes the importance of creating positive change and improving the well-being of individuals and communities.

The growing emphasis on social value is driven by a recognition that sustainable development requires a holistic approach that balances economic growth with social equity and environmental stewardship. This perspective aligns with global frameworks such as the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), which advocate for inclusive and sustainable economic development, reduced inequalities, and enhanced social cohesion (Aslam, Naveed, & Shabbir, 2021).

Social value creation involves a diverse array of activities and strategies, from corporate social responsibility (CSR) initiatives to social enterprises and impact investing. These approaches aim to address complex social issues such as poverty, inequality, and environmental degradation by fostering innovation and collaboration among stakeholders. Central to the concept of social value is the understanding that value is not solely quantified in monetary terms but also includes non-financial impacts such as improved health, education, and social capital (Richards, 2023). For example, a community development project that provides vocational training and employment opportunities not only boosts economic prospects but also enhances individual self-esteem, community resilience, and social cohesion.

Poverty remains a significant issue worldwide, impacting the economy, society, politics, and morals (Fahrudi, 2020). More than 700 million people, mainly in developing countries, live in extreme poverty on less than US$1.90 per day (Taghizadeh-Hesary, Yoshino, & Otsuka, (2021).). Income inequality has grown in recent years, widening the gap between the wealthy and the poor, which can hinder economic growth and social unity (Islam, & McGillivray, (2020).). Developing countries tend to have higher levels of income inequality than developed nations (Omar, & Inaba, (2020).). While both governmental and non-governmental organizations have implemented various programs to address poverty, it continues to be a significant global challenge. Collaborative efforts between the private and public sectors are needed to develop effective policies and strategies to combat poverty (Barua, 2020). It’s on this that the researcher aimed to study the effect of social innovation and social value on poverty alleviation in Zamfara state.

Statement of Problem

Social innovation and social value have gained widespread recognition in recent years for their ability to address important global problems that businesses, governments and societies have failed to address (Galego, Moulaert, Brans, & Santinha, 2022). The difficulties facing the social and economic environment cannot be overestimated. Every country in the world is affected by this problem, including Nigeria and Zamfara State in particular. This state faces a number of obstacles, including social (poverty and inequality) and economic (firm failure rates) sustainability problems. The current economic challenges have led to an increase in poverty worldwide. Likewise, Poverty has affected social and economic activities in Nigeria as a whole and Zamfara in particular. Despite its blessings in terms of natural resources, the state has not fully utilized all its resources to better the living condition of its citizens. Instead, successive governments have experimented range of initiatives aimed at eliminating unemployment and poverty among its citizens. However, poverty level in Zamfara state remains very high and complicated, and need to be addressed immediately. This study attempts to investigate mechanisms like social innovation and social value as an instrument of poverty alleviation.

Research questions

The following questions are designed to guide the study, these are;

1. What are the relationship between social innovation and poverty alleviation in Zamfara state?
2. What are the relationship between social value and poverty alleviation in Zamfara state?

Research objectives

The general objective is to assess the effect of social innovation and social value on poverty alleviation in Zamfara state. The specific objectives include the following;

1. To assess the relationship between social innovation and poverty alleviation in Zamfara state.
2. To analyze the relationship between social value and poverty alleviation in Zamfara state.

Research Hypothesis

The following hypotheses are stated in null form. These include;

H₀; There is no significant positive statistical relationship between social innovation and poverty alleviation in Zamfara state.

H₀; There is no significant positive statistical relationship between social value and poverty alleviation in Zamfara state.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Social Innovation

Innovation, another name for social entrepreneurship, is the process by which creative thinkers develop profitable ventures that directly affect the economy of any nation. The process of creating fresh concepts or answers to deal with environmental and social issues is known as social innovation. In order to bring about constructive social change, it entails developing new ways of thinking, behaving, and organizing (Allan, 2020).  Social innovation refers to novel approaches (i.e., goods, services, partnerships, amalgamations, procedures) that seek to identify practical and efficient ways to tackle societal problems. The fair-trade movement, the adoption of international labor organization standards (ILO), microcredit, charter schools, community-based planning, and corporate social responsibility initiatives are a few instances of social innovation that have reached a large number of people and been successful recently (Dionisio, & de Vargas, 2020). The idea of “social innovation” has gained popularity recently in academic circles and public discourse, particularly in the social sciences. According to the chairperson and cofounder of the Schwab Foundation for Social Entrepreneurship, social innovation is a dynamic and developing field that aims to bring about positive social change through novel and long-lasting strategies. She went on to say that in addition to establishing new institutions and structures, social innovation can also entail altering attitudes and behaviors. It has the potential to be a potent tool for solving intricate and systemic issues like inequality, poverty, and environmental degradation (Ehigiamusoe, et’al, 2022).

Social innovation was suggested by scholars as a way to boost productivity, expand the flow of commodities and market size, increase consumption, and stimulate economic growth. Social innovation is finding innovative solutions to solve societal problems and can be used as a new policy instrument by local governments and authorities, which are the primary actors in establishing smart cities and territories, (Galego, et’al, 2022). Cuntz, et’al (2020) claim that social innovation has a significant function which often leads to achieving long-lasting development. Social innovation is majorly seen as the mover of sustainable development. Tykkyläinen & Ritala, (2021) suggest that social innovation is derived by generating business activities that are focused not only on making a profit but also bringing about business activities that are connected to improving the wellbeing of the people. According to Castro-Arce, & Vanclay (2020), the success of social innovation is possible to assess through societal transformation and the positive impact it has on the world. Many Scholars position is that social innovation could be used to increase market size and flow of commodities, stimulate economic growth, and increase productivity. Social innovation plays an important role and frequently results in long-lasting development, according to João-Roland, & Granados, (2020). A key driver of sustainable development is thought to be social innovation. Battistella, et’al (2021) Posit that social innovation arises from the creation of business ventures that prioritize not just profit maximization but also the enhancement of the overall community’s and specific social groups’ well-being. By examining how social innovation transforms society and makes a positive impact on the world, João-Roland, & Granados, (2020) claim that it is possible to gauge the success of social innovation

Social innovation is a cross-cutting term that is challenging to draw clear boundaries around because of its variety of methodological meanings and numerous adaptations to various fields and disciplines. Consequently, a plethora of literature has been written about the definitions, mechanisms, and key players in social innovation. Some have characterized it as. innovative services and activities that are primarily created and disseminated by organizations with primarily social objectives, driven by the desire to address a social need” (Hekkert, et’al, 2020). It’s a procedure meant to accomplish “. Point. the transformation of social relations to satisfy alienated human needs; these changes “improve” the governance systems that direct and control the distribution of goods and services intended to meet those needs and create new governance organizations. Examples of these innovations are “. Spot. Novel concepts (i.e., goods, services, and models) that jointly establish new social bonds or cooperative endeavors while also satisfying societal needs (better than alternatives). Put differently, they represent innovation.

Social Value

The idea of social value is not new, but it hasn’t been thoroughly studied in academic publications in a while. According to Bolat, & Korkmaz, (2021). Social value is about understanding the relative importance that people place on changes to their wellbeing and using the insights we gain from this understanding to make better decisions. The potential of social value goes further than just creating more value. social value is the beneficial influence an organization or business has on society apart from financial gains. Environmental, financial, and social advantages that support long-term growth and the welfare of individually, groups, and throughout society can all be considered social values. Creating jobs for marginalized groups, lowering carbon emissions through sustainable practices, expanding access to healthcare and education, encouraging social inclusion diversity and aiding local communities through corporate social responsibility programs are a few examples of social value. The process of addressing social issues in order to bring about the intended social change is referred to as social value (Foroudi, et’al, 2021). Social impact assessments, social return on investment (SROI), and other frameworks are some of the ways that social value can be quantified and assessed. These frameworks assist organizations in recognizing opportunities for optimization and improvement as well as in understanding and quantifying their social impact. Growing awareness of the significance of social value and its capacity to promote positive change has been observed in recent years. In order to create sustainable and inclusive value for all stakeholders, a growing number of businesses and organizations are incorporating social value into their strategic planning and decision-making processes (Yalcin, (2022). Knowledge expansion, beneficiary empowerment, socioeconomic advantage development and provision, life modification, and institutional, individual, community, state, and global perception, attitude, and behavior modification are all examples of social value.

Poverty Reduction and Alleviation

According to Kaggwa, et’al (2024), poverty is a worldwide issue that affects society, politics, the economy, and morals. One billion people worldwide, primarily in developing or emerging nations, still live in extreme poverty with daily incomes of less than $1.90 (Khan, et’al, 2020). This represents about 10% of the world’s population. Also, according to Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (OECD) data, income inequality has grown over the past few decades, widening the gap between the rich and the poor, which may have an impact on social cohesion and economic growth (Amar & Pratama, 2020). According to Solt, (2020), income equality is generally higher in developing nations than in developed ones. Although governmental and non-governmental organizations have implemented a number of programs, poverty remains a major issue worldwide. Therefore, policies and strategies that allow the public and private sectors to work together to address this issue are needed (Rashed & Shah, 2021). Initiatives and strategies aimed at reducing and ultimately eliminating poverty in a specific country, region, or community are referred to as “poverty alleviation” (Osei and Zhuang, 2020). It comprises addressing the root causes of poverty and implementing various policies to improve the socioeconomic conditions of the impoverished on both an individual and a community level. A number of strategies and programs are frequently used to reduce poverty: Poverty alleviation refers to all the methods, ways or techniques adopted by government, non-governmental organizations or wealthy individuals to reduce or eradicate poverty from a collectivity. Poverty alleviation/eradication is best approached as an exercise in raising people’s capabilities or enhancing freedoms.  The corollary of this approach to development is empowerment, which is, helping people in poverty to acquire the tools they need to meet their basic needs as the long-term solution to poverty.

Theoretical Framework

This research work is justify with two major theory, Schumpeterian theory of Innovation and Weber’s 1947 theory of social action.

Schumpeterian Theory of Innovation

The Schumpeterian school of thought values ambitious entrepreneurs who challenge and dismantle the status quo. Entrepreneurs are inventors who start their own businesses and employ “novel combinations of means of production,” according to Schumpeter. In his theory of economic growth, the role of the entrepreneur is to use creativity to upset the status quo. He called this process of entrepreneurship the “creative destruction of capital,” and it was the root of any change that upset the industry’s normal cyclical flow. “Creative destruction,” a process of industrial mutation, completely changes the economy from the inside out, destroying the previous system and erecting a new one (Xing & Sharif, 2020). Entrepreneurship innovation leads to creative destruction storms by making resources like ideas, technologies, skills, and equipment outdated. The quest for new products and services, expanded markets, new manufacturing techniques, new supply sources, decreased poverty levels, and the creation of new social value are all examples of entrepreneurial endeavors, according to Schumpeter. The key for reducing poverty is through entrepreneurship, original projects created are indicators of reducing poverty and these are born out of creativity.

According to Si et’al (2021), corporate innovation raises profits and reduces poverty. This finding lends support to their theory. The Schumpeterian innovation theory presents a critical perspective on social entrepreneurship, emphasizing the need for social entrepreneurs to establish social firms, innovate by creating market disequilibrium, be creative, and bring about social change.

Social Action Theory

This research is based on Weber’s 1947 theory of social action, which elucidates the nature of cooperative societies. Individuals who form cooperatives are able to address and resolve a range of socioeconomic problems by combining their resources. Social action theory states that a critical analysis of the subjective interpretations people make of their experiences is necessary to comprehend poverty. This emphasizes the significance of taking into account the viewpoints and experiences of those living in poverty in order to create policies that effectively reduce poverty.

Sun & Zhang (2021) asserts that social action theory places a strong emphasis on how social networks and interactions influence people’s behavior.

According to this viewpoint, interventions aimed at reducing poverty should take into account the social networks and relationships people have with one another in order to provide them with resources and support. The idea that collective action can bring about social change is acknowledged by social action theory. This suggests that, when it comes to reducing poverty, giving communities the tools they need to band together and tackle common issues can result in more long-lasting solutions (Fatima, Iqbal, & Ahmed, (2023).

Sun & Zhang (2021) asserts that social action theory places a strong emphasis on how social networks and interactions influence people’s behavior. According to this viewpoint, interventions aimed at reducing poverty should take into account the social networks and relationships people have with one another in order to provide them with resources and support. The idea that collective action can bring about social change is acknowledged by social action theory. This suggests that, when it comes to reducing poverty, giving communities the tools they need to band together and tackle common issues can result in more long-lasting solutions.

Empirical Framework

Social entrepreneurship, which is defined as social innovation and social value, which are seen as a means of overcoming poverty. One promising strategy for eradicating poverty and stimulating the economy is social innovation and social value. In order to create framework change that improves people’s lives, market-oriented exercises are often needed. Social innovation and social value make ventures that may be for benefits or nonprofit.

Daniel in 2014 studied on the role of social entrepreneurship in the fight against poverty, exclusion and marginalization in Haiti. The study focuses on another approach, social entrepreneurship, as a development tool coming from the private sector to fight poverty, exclusion and marginalization. He conducted the survey, consisting of interviews with eight social entrepreneurs and three nongovernmental organizations and found that social entrepreneurship seems to be a promising way to exploit poverty-reduction opportunities, while applying business practices in a sustainable manner.

Bento and Muzanenhamo (2014) demonstrated, linking their analysis to the Millennium Development Goals 2015, how social entrepreneurship has a pivotal role in facilitating Africans as brand Africa, to be the principle drivers of their own sustainable development, through knowledge and skills development. The study provides evidences from the field based on case study approach and semi-structured interviews. They found that is an important aspect of reducing poverty through social entrepreneurship is that participants in the communities are also involved in the solution for their problems, to achieve the objective of poverty reduction of the Millennium Development Goals and to create more sustainable future for all humanity. They also highlighted therefore imply that both people within a given place and their social initiatives are crucial actors in poverty reduction. More remarkably, social entrepreneurship and place branding, which are seldom analysed in synthesis, if at all, have a common dimension in the sense that they are people centric concepts and practices.

Fotheringham et al. in 2014 investigated the potential of social enterprise as a strategy for poverty reduction for women. They using the literature synthesis method and found that, in terms of specific factors contributing to women’s poverty and hypothesizes mechanisms through which social enterprises can mitigate or address these factors in practice. In their study also highlights that the need to ensure a solid policy foundation is in place before a number of key support mechanisms are enabled, which then facilitate specific types of work that can then grow in a sustainable manner.

Manyaka (2015) investigated the concept, social entrepreneurship, as a potential lever in economic and social transformation of the poorest-of-the-poor community of Nellmapius Township, east of Pretoria, South Africa. The study applies Schumpeter’s theory, and found that the poorest-of-the-poor community of Nellmapius needs social entrepreneurs who will work in the community and with them to develop models that can add value to their lives. These would be the kinds of people who would use their innovative thinking to be alert to the opportunities in the middle of the hopelessness found within this environment.

Sijabat (2015) attempted to better understand the role of social entrepreneurship in enabling economic opportunities for the poor. The study developed based on a survey of the literature. She found that social entrepreneurship has broadened access to financial sources, promoted the use of social innovations in reducing social problems, granted people empowerment and social inclusion, and created jobs. The first three factors create income for the poor, thereby enabling economic opportunities, whereas the latter eliminates the deprivation of capabilities that allow the poor to involved and act in economic activities.

Additionally, Nasike in 2016 investigated the effects of social entrepreneurship practices by microfinance institutions on poverty reduction. The study beneficiaries of 7 microfinance institutions were involved. 100 questionnaires were distributed and collected for analysis. He found that there is a strong relationship between the products and services offered by MFIs and the level of poverty eradication through income generation. It’s also been observed by offering services and products, MFIs have enabled many people start business, improve their saving knowledge, purchase new farming machinery and build modern homes.

Kazmi et al., (2016) explored that what are the basic challenges faced by Social Entrepreneurship in the boundaries of Pakistan and how social entrepreneurship can contribute in developing the economy of Pakistan. In the study, his highlighted that Social entrepreneurship has a promising approach to eliminate the causes of poverty, which helps in boosting the economy. Social entrepreneurship makes ventures that may be for benefits or nonprofit, yet the need is frequently on utilizing market oriented exercises to create framework change that enhances the lives of individuals. Social entrepreneurship has a specific capacity in the financial ecosystem. The consequences of social entrepreneurship on eradication of poverty and increases income for the beneficiaries of microfinance are at best inconclusive.

In 2013, Simpson sought to answer the question: What role, if any, does social enterprise play in addressing the persistent and stubborn issue of poverty? Using the Stakeholder Model, the study analyzed the Top 100 Non-profits list and conducted qualitative interviews with nonprofit leaders in Fort Worth, Texas. The findings indicated that stabilizing services such as housing, healthcare, and temporary assistance are essential for all individuals. Once these services are in place, education and wealth creation can act as driving forces. Combined, stabilizing services and driving forces lead to economic independence and self-sufficiency. Social enterprises are particularly effective in providing these driving services, especially through educating and employing workers.

Ndhlovu and Ndinda (2017) examined the extent to which “social impact investments” in Sub-Saharan Africa by the diaspora have contributed to poverty reduction and significant social transformation. The study discovered that there has been minimal focus on the limitations of social entrepreneurship concerning the agenda for social transformation. Essentially, the more critical perspective positions the diaspora within the framework of capitalist accumulation, potentially resulting in local enterprises being outcompeted by diaspora ventures. Moreover, their capacity to incite comprehensive social and political change is limited. Nonetheless, diaspora resources can help reinforce weak and failing states.

Finally, Jamadar (2016) investigated emerging trends in social business aimed at improving the socioeconomic conditions of poor individuals through their direct involvement in grassroots social business activities in developing countries. The study found that conventional ‘top-down’ approaches, commonly used by governments and bi/multilateral development programs, often overlook the poorest at the grassroots level. Consequently, many poor individuals do not receive their basic needs and cannot afford alternative services offered by the business sector. This market failure marginalizes them, and unless a third party provides some alternative basic services, existing inequalities and poverty will persist.

METHODOLOGY

This survey research employs people who work in social work, such as: small businesses and NGOs to represent the target group for the study. Purposive sampling technique was used in this research to select suitable and motivated participants for the study. The best way to collect information from a large, dispersed population was to use a survey or questionnaire. Three hundred (300) copies of the structured questionnaires were designed and distributed to the selected groups among people involved in social work. They were taken from the three hundred copies distributed and used for analysis.

With the intention of studying social innovation and social value with its impact on poverty alleviation, the questionnaires were sent to people involved in social work, including small businesses and NGOs. The purpose of this assumption is to comprehensively understand the relationship between social innovation, social value and poverty alleviation and its implementation in Zamfara State. Structural equation models were used for data analysis and PLS-SEM was used to analyze the path of the distribution. Bootstrapping was used to determine the significance level.

In this study, a structured questionnaire was used to collect data. The questionnaire is divided into section A focused on the demographic profiles, such as gender, academic qualifications and employment status, and section B contained questions pertaining to social innovation, social value and poverty alleviation. All measurements were available on a 5 point Likert scale (Strongly Agree–Strongly Disagree). Validity was determined by surveying experts in business management with the questionnaires. Then, Cronbach’s  alpha was used to test the construct’s reliability.

Data for this study were gathered using a structured questionnaire. The questionnaire is grouped into two sections: Section A focuses on demographic profiles like gender, educational background, and work status and Section B includes questions about social innovation, social values, and poverty alleviation. All measurements were available on a 5-point Likert scale (Strongly Agree–Strongly Disagree). Validity of the construct was determined by surveying experts in business management with the questionnaires. Then, Cronbach’s alpha was used to test the construct’s reliability.

The research distributed three hundred (300) copies of the questionnaires to respondents that participated in the study. The study used two hundred and eighty seven (287) copies of returned questionnaires to conduct the analysis.  The Questionnaire response rate is 95%.

Model of the Study

PA=F(SI, SV)—————————————-1

PA=β₀ + β₁SI + β₂SV + µ————————2

PA=poverty Alleviation

SI = Social Innovation

SV = Social value

Ringle, Wende, and Becker (2015). SmartPLS 3

Table 1: Construct Reliability and Validity

	Cronbach’s Alpha (>0.70)	rho_A (>0.70)	Composite Reliability (>0.70)	Average Variance Extracted (AVE) (>0.50)
poverty Alleviation	0.941	0.942	0.955	0.808
social innovation	0.869	0.879	0.911	0.719
social value	0.889	0.899	0.920	0.698

Source: Ringle, Wende,, and Becker (2015). SmartPLS 3

All constructs in table 1, above demonstrate high reliability and validity according to the criteria provided. The Cronbach’s Alpha values 0.941, 0.869 and 0.889 respectively indicated strong internal consistency which signaled a strong instrument for the study, The rho_A and composite reliability values0.942, 0.879 and 0.899 respectively confirm that the constructs are measured reliably for the study. The composite reliability values 0.955, 0.911 and 0.920 are all on the high side, suggesting a very strong reliability for all constructs and the AVE values 0.808, 0.719 and 0.698 ensure that the constructs capture more variance than measurement error. Thus, the constructs of poverty alleviation, social innovation, and social value are both reliable and valid for further analysis.

Outer Loadings

Table 2

	poverty Alleviation	social innovation	social value
PA3	0.891
PA4	0.878
PA5	0.918
PA7	0.893
PA6	0.914
SI1		0.764
SI2		0.866
SI4		0.874
SI5		0.883
SV1			0.829
SV2			0.709
SV3			0.831
SV5			0.931
SV6			0.860

Source; Ringle, Wende,, and Becker (2015). SmartPLS 3

All indicators in the above table for the constructs poverty alleviation, social innovation and social value have outer loadings greater than 0.70, which confirms that Poverty Alleviation Indicators PA3, PA4, PA5, PA6, and PA7 all have high loadings (ranging from 0.878 to 0.918), indicating strong and reliable measurement of the construct. Social Innovation Indicators SI1, SI2, SI4, and SI5 also demonstrate high loadings (ranging from 0.764 to 0.883), showing that these indicators effectively measure social innovation. Social Value, Indicators SV1, SV2, SV3, SV5, and SV6 have high loadings (ranging from 0.709 to 0.931), ensuring a robust measurement of the social value construct.

However, the high outer loadings across all constructs confirm that the indicators used are reliable and valid for measuring their respective latent constructs. This supports the constructs’ validity and reliability in the context of similar analysis frameworks.

ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION

The earlier stated research hypotheses are subjected to an empirical assessment in this section. A Statistical software called Smart PLS was used to test the hypotheses. The significant impact of independent variables on dependent variables was ascertained using this method. The purpose of the hypothesis test is to ascertain whether the study’s proposed hypotheses are accepted or rejected by statistical evidence. The tested hypotheses were presented in null form.

Path Coefficients

Mean, STDEV, T-Values, P-Values

Table 3

	Original Sample (O)	Sample Mean (M)	Standard Deviation (STDEV)	T Statistics (|O/STDEV|)	P Values
social innovation -> poverty Alleviation	1.378	1.351	0.161	8.553	0.000
social value -> poverty Alleviation	-0.452	-0.424	0.169	2.674	0.008

Source; Ringle, Wende, and Becker (2015). SmartPLS 3

The data in Table 3 represents the relationships between the construct’s social innovation and poverty alleviation, as well as social value and poverty alleviation. With the hypothesis on Social Innovation -> Poverty Alleviation, the result shows that Original Sample (O) of 1.378 indicates a strong positive relationship between social innovation and poverty alleviation. Sample Mean (M) of 1.351 is close to the original sample value, showing consistency in the sampling process. Standard Deviation (STDEV) of 0.161 indicates low variability around the mean, suggesting that the data points are tightly clustered around the mean. T Statistics of 8.553 is calculated by dividing the original sample value by the standard deviation (1.378 / 0.161). This high T statistic indicates that the relationship between social innovation and poverty alleviation is statistically significant. P Values of 0.000 indicates a highly significant result (typically, a p-value less than 0.05 is considered significant). A p-value of 0.000 suggests very strong evidence against the null hypothesis, confirming that social innovation significantly impacts poverty alleviation.

The second hypothesis stated that Social Value -> Poverty Alleviation, the result shows that Original Sample (O) of -0.452 indicates a negative relationship between social value and poverty alleviation. Sample Mean (M) of -0.424 is slightly less negative than the original sample value, but still indicates a negative relationship. Standard Deviation (STDEV) of 0.169 suggests moderate variability around the mean. T Statistics of 2.674 is calculated by dividing the original sample value by the standard deviation (-0.452 / 0.169), and this indicates that the relationship is statistically significant. P Values of 0.008 indicates a significant result, as it is below the 0.05 threshold. This suggests that there is a statistically significant negative relationship between social value and poverty alleviation.

Therefore, the first hypothesis shows that there is a strong, positive, and statistically significant relationship between social innovation and poverty alleviation. The high T statistic and very low p-value indicate strong evidence supporting this relationship. The null hypothesis is hereby rejected based on the evidences that are in support. The finding validates the similar submission of Meshack, Orji & Ogechukwu,(2022), Yayeh & Demissie (2024), Farooq,  Din,  Soomro & Riviezzo (2024) and Nor (2024). They revealed that there is a significant positive association between social innovation and poverty alleviation, and further express that social innovation is the driving force to challenge and reduce poverty syndrome.

The second hypothesis shows that there is a negative and statistically significant relationship between social value and poverty alleviation. The T statistic and p-value indicate that this relationship is also significant, though in the opposite direction compared to social innovation. The null hypothesis is hereby rejected based on the evidences that are in support. The study also aligns with the similar findings of Senadjki, & Sulaiman, (2015). Baghebo & Emmanuel (2015). Zhang, Zhou, & Lei, (2017), Zhang, Wang  & Yang, (2023). They suggested a range of measures that could be used to better take social values ​​into account when planning policies or decisions related to community projects and how to reduce poverty

Moreover, these results suggest that while social innovation positively impacts poverty alleviation, an increase in social value is associated with a decrease in poverty alleviation, although the latter relationship is weaker than the former.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings of this study are based on the results of the two formulated hypotheses examined in this paper. This study concludes that social innovation is fundamental to poverty reduction. The act of engaging and promoting social innovation in a unique way by the state will empower more people and unemployment will fall dramatically. Consequently, this will have a significant impact on poverty reduction in Zamfara State.

The study also concludes that as social value increases, the effectiveness of poverty alleviation reduces. This indicates that the observed relationship is unlikely to be due to random chances. The social value initiative by the state might have long time benefit that are not immediately and apparently felt in poverty alleviation metrics.

Furthermore, it was concluded that social innovation and social value influenced poverty alleviation in different categories. Therefore, skill acquisition and other developmental infrastructures that have direct benefits on individuals could significantly impact and reduce some of the social problems in the state.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Given the strong positive relationship between social innovation and poverty alleviation, the researcher recommendations that organizations and policymakers should focus and foster on social innovation. Through:

1. Collaborative networks, training of capacity, and funding and support. The funding allocated by policy makers to social innovation hubs that assist and prioritize the reduction of poverty should be increased. One of the most important things we can do to reduce poverty is to train and support social innovators. The drive to build networks in collaboration with the public and private sectors can improve social innovation initiatives aimed at lowering the rate of poverty.
2. The policy maker should carry out a comprehensive assessment of social value programs to pinpoint any areas that impede efforts to reduce poverty. This assessment should include community engagement, goal alignment, social value initiatives, and ongoing monitoring. Community members should be involved in the planning and execution of social value programs to guarantee that they address real needs and that such initiatives are in line with the objectives of reducing poverty. An adequate system of assessment and monitoring will raise the poverty level by tracking how social value initiatives are affecting the reduction of poverty and making the required adjustments based on feedback and results. .

REFERENCES

1. Allan, J. (2020). Theorising new developments in critical social work. In Critical social work (pp. 30-44). Routledge.
2. Amar, S., & Pratama, I. (2020). Exploring the link between income inequality, poverty reduction and economic growth: An ASEAN perspective. International Journal of Innovation, Creativity and Change, 11(2), 24-41.
3. Aslam, A., Naveed, A., & Shabbir, G. (2021). Is it an institution, digital or social inclusion that matters for inclusive growth? A panel data analysis. Quality & Quantity, 55(1), 333-355.
4. Barua, S. (2020). Financing sustainable development goals: A review of challenges and mitigation strategies. Business Strategy & Development, 3(3), 277-293.
5. Battistella, C., Dangelico, R. M., Nonino, F., & Pessot, E. (2021). How social start‐ups avoid being falling stars when developing social innovation. Creativity and Innovation Management, 30(2), 320-335.
6. Bento, P. F., & Muzanenhamo, P. (2014). Social Entrepreneurship and Brand Africa–How Human Capacity Can Reduce Poverty. Available at SSRN 2460304.
7. Bolat, Y., & Korkmaz, C. (2021). Social values and life skills as predictors of organizational culture: A study on teachers. SAGE open, 11(2), 21582440211023179.
8. Castro-Arce, K., & Vanclay, F. (2020). Transformative social innovation for sustainable rural development: An analytical framework to assist community-based initiatives. Journal of Rural Studies, 74, 45-54.
9. Cuntz, A., Foray, D., & Mostovova, E. (2020). On the economics of social innovation–a conceptual framework and its policy implications. Innovation, 22(4), 469-487.
10. Daniel, M. E., & LENAIN, P. (2014). The role of social entrepreneurship in the fight against poverty, exclusion and marginalization in Haiti. UNIVERSITE PARIS-EST CRETEIL.
11. Dionisio, M., & de Vargas, E. R. (2020). Corporate social innovation: A systematic literature review. International business review, 29(2), 101641.
12. Ehigiamusoe, K. U., Majeed, M. T., & Dogan, E. (2022). The nexus between poverty, inequality and environmental pollution: evidence across different income groups of countries. Journal of Cleaner Production, 341, 130863.
13. Fahrudi, A. N. (2020). Alleviating poverty through social innovation. Australasian Accounting, Business and Finance Journal, 14(1), 71-78.
14. Farooq, S. H., Din, A. U., Soomro, I. A., & Riviezzo, A. (2024). Unveiling the path to sustainable poverty alleviation in Pakistan: Investigating the role of microfinance interventions in empowering women entrepreneurs. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 40(2), 101331.
15. Fatima, S., Iqbal, M. N., & Ahmed, F. (2023). A Quantitative Study On Poverty Reduction And The Development Of Inclusive And Resilient Communities. Priority-The International Business Review, 1(2), 12-18.
16. Foroudi, P., Akarsu, T. N., Marvi, R., & Balakrishnan, J. (2021). Intellectual evolution of social innovation: A bibliometric analysis and avenues for future research trends. Industrial Marketing Management, 93, 446-465.
17. Foroudi, P., Akarsu, T. N., Marvi, R., & Balakrishnan, J. (2021). Intellectual evolution of social innovation: A bibliometric analysis and avenues for future research trends. Industrial Marketing Management, 93, 446-465.
18. Fotheringham, S., & Saunders, C. (2014). Social enterprise as poverty reducing strategy for women. Social Enterprise Journal, 10(3), 176-199.
19. Galego, D., Moulaert, F., Brans, M., & Santinha, G. (2022). Social innovation & governance: a scoping review. Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research, 35(2), 265-290.
20. Galego, D., Moulaert, F., Brans, M., & Santinha, G. (2022). Social innovation & governance: a scoping review. Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research, 35(2), 265-290.
21. Hekkert, M. P., Janssen, M. J., Wesseling, J. H., & Negro, S. O. (2020). Mission-oriented innovation systems. Environmental innovation and societal transitions, 34, 76-79.
22. Islam, M. R., & McGillivray, M. (2020). Wealth inequality, governance and economic growth. Economic Modelling, 88, 1-13.
23. João-Roland, I. D. S., & Granados, M. L. (2020). Social innovation drivers in social enterprises: Systematic review. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 27(5), 775-795.
24. Kaggwa, S., Eleogu, T. F., Okonkwo, F., Farayola, O. A., Uwaoma, P. U., & Akinoso, A. (2024). AI in decision making: transforming business strategies. International Journal of Research and Scientific Innovation, 10(12), 423-444.
25. Khan, N., Naushad, M., Faisal, S., & Fahad, S. (2020). Analysis of poverty of different countries of the world. Available at SSRN 3701329.
26. Manyaka, S. J. (2015). Social entrepreneurship: A solution for transforming the disadvantaged community of Nellmapius. HTS: Theological Studies, 71(3), 1-7.
27. Meshack, A., Orji, M. G., & Ogechukwu, N. G. (2022). Poverty Reduction in Awka Metropolis: The Role of Entrepreneurship Productivity. Economit Journal: Scientific Journal of Accountancy, Management and Finance, 2(4), 244-262.
28. Nor, A. I. (2024). Entrepreneurship Development as a Tool for Employment Creation, Income Generation, and Poverty Reduction for the Youth and Women. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 1-24.
29. Omar, M. A., & Inaba, K. (2020). Does financial inclusion reduce poverty and income inequality in developing countries? A panel data analysis. Journal of economic structures, 9(1), 37.
30. Osei, C. D., & Zhuang, J. (2020). Rural poverty alleviation strategies and social capital link: The mediation role of women entrepreneurship and social innovation. Sage Open, 10(2), 2158244020925504.
31. Quality Management Practices, and Digital Innovation on Organizational Performance Mediated by Competitiveness Strategy and Moderated by Industrial Collaboration at Vocational Colleges in Indonesia. ITALIENISCH, 12(2), 1096-1100.
32. Rashed, A. H., & Shah, A. (2021). The role of private sector in the implementation of sustainable development goals. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 23(3), 2931-2948.
33. Richards, A. (2023). Measuring and managing social value: myths and opportunities. In Social Value, Climate Change and Environmental Stewardship: Insights from Theory and Practice (pp. 33-56). Cham: Springer International Publishing.
34. Senadjki, A., & Sulaiman, J. (2015). An empirical study on the influence of Islamic values in poverty alleviation. Journal of Islamic Accounting and Business Research, 6(2), 222-243.
35. Setyawan, A. A., Prabowo, H., Simatupang, B., & Pradipto, Y. D. (2022). Effect of
36. Si, S., Ahlstrom, D., Wei, J., & Cullen, J. (2021). Introduction: Business, entrepreneurship and innovation toward poverty reduction. In Business, entrepreneurship and innovation toward poverty reduction (pp. 1-20). Routledge.
37. Sijabat, R. (2015). The role of social entrepreneurship in enabling economic opportunities for the poor: A synthesis of the literature and empirical works. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 6(11), 35-41.
38. Ringle, C. M., Wende, S., and Becker, J.-M. (2015). “SmartPLS 3.” Boenningstedt: SmartPLS GmbH, http://www.smartpls.com
39. Solt, F. (2020). Measuring income inequality across countries and over time: The standardized world income inequality database. Social Science Quarterly, 101(3), 1183-1199.
40. Sun, Y., & Zhang, Y. (2021). A review of theories and models applied in studies of social media addiction and implications for future research. Addictive behaviors, 114, 106699.
41. Sun, Y., & Zhang, Y. (2021). A review of theories and models applied in studies of social media addiction and implications for future research. Addictive behaviors, 114, 106699.
42. Taghizadeh-Hesary, F., Yoshino, N., & Otsuka, M. (2021). Role of international remittances as an economic instrument for poverty eradication in line with sustainable development goals. Sustainability and environmental decision making, 441-466.
43. Tykkyläinen, S., & Ritala, P. (2021). Business model innovation in social enterprises: An activity system perspective. Journal of Business Research, 125, 684-697.
44. Xing, J. L., & Sharif, N. (2020). From creative destruction to creative appropriation: A comprehensive framework. Research Policy, 49(7), 104060.
45. Yalcin, A. S., Kilic, H. S., & Delen, D. (2022). The use of multi-criteria decision-making methods in business analytics: A comprehensive literature review. Technological forecasting and social change, 174, 121193.
46. Yasir, N., Mahmood, N., Mehmood, H. S., Babar, M., Irfan, M., & Liren, A. (2021). Impact of environmental, social values and the consideration of future consequences for the development of a sustainable entrepreneurial intention. Sustainability, 13(5), 2648.
47. Yayeh, F. A., & Demissie, W. M. (2024). Social Capital and Poverty Reduction in Ethiopia: Evidence from the Amhara Region. African Journal of Commercial Studies, 4(4), 289-302.
48. Zhang, D., Wang, Q., & Yang, Y. (2023). Cure-all or curse? A meta-regression on the effect of tourism development on poverty alleviation. Tourism Management, 94, 104650.
49. Zhang, Y., Zhou, X., & Lei, W. (2017). Social capital and its contingent value in poverty reduction: Evidence from Western China. World Development, 93, 350-361.