applied

sciences
Article
Information and Communication Technologies and Agricultural
Production: New Evidence from Africa
Robert Ugochukwu Onyeneke 1 , Daniel Adu Ankrah 2 , Richmond Atta-Ankomah 3 , Fred Fosu Agyarko 4 ,
Chinenye Judith Onyeneke 5 and Jalil Ghassemi Nejad 6, *

1 Department of Agriculture, Alex Ekwueme Federal University Ndufu-Alike, Ikwo 482131, Nigeria
2 Department of Agricultural Extension, University of Ghana, Accra P.O. Box LG 68, Ghana
3 Institute of Statistical Social and Economic Research (ISSER), College of Humanities, University of Ghana,
Accra P.O. Box LG 74, Ghana
4 Institute for Scientific and Technological Information (INSTI), Accra P.O. Box M 32, Ghana
5 Centre for Entrepreneurship and Employability, Alex Ekwueme Federal University Ndufu-Alike,
Ikwo 482131, Nigeria
6 Department of Animal Science and Technology, Sanghuh College of Animal Life Sciences, Konkuk University,
Seoul 05029, Republic of Korea
* Correspondence: [email protected]

Abstract: While information and communication technologies (ICT) have proven to be useful in
boosting agricultural production and productivity, regardless of the geographical location, much of
the discussion on ICT and their impact focus on the global north, with deficient literature on the global
south. The limited account of the global south shows mixed conclusions on the impact of information
and communication technologies on agricultural production, with most studies focusing on crop
production, as a proxy for agricultural production, leaving out livestock production. Animated by
this concern, this article explores the impact of ICTs on agricultural production (crop and livestock) in
Africa using panel data from 32 African countries and the panel autoregressive distributed lag model
as the estimation technique. We find that individuals using internet significantly increased crop
production in the long run. Specifically, a percentage increase in internet patronage increases crop
Citation: Onyeneke, R.U.; Ankrah, production by 0.071% but significantly decreases the livestock production index, both in the short and
D.A.; Atta-Ankomah, R.; Agyarko, long run. Mobile phone subscriptions had a significant negative impact on crop production in the
F.F.; Onyeneke, C.J.; Nejad, J.G. long run but had a significant positive impact on livestock production in the long run. Fixed phone
Information and Communication subscriptions significantly increased crop production in the long run but significantly decreased
Technologies and Agricultural livestock production index in the long run. The findings show bidirectional causality between
Production: New Evidence from crop production and internet patronage, livestock production and individuals using internet, crop
Africa. Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 3918. production and mobile cellular subscription, crop production and net national income, and rural
https://doi.org/10.3390/app13063918
population and both crop and livestock production. We recommend that governments in Africa
Academic Editors: Michele Raffaelli, increase funding investment in digital technologies to foster increased agricultural production while
Marco Fontanelli and Daniele Antichi addressing structural challenges that constrain increased access to digital agricultural technologies.
It might be useful if governments in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) incentivize the telecommunication
Received: 3 March 2023
Revised: 14 March 2023
companies to extend digital coverage to rural areas through tax rebates and holidays to encourage
Accepted: 17 March 2023 rural inclusion in the digital space to bridge the digital divide.
Published: 19 March 2023
Keywords: individuals using the internet; mobile phone subscriptions; fixed telephone subscriptions;
net national income per capita; credit to the private sector; rural population; crop production; livestock
production; panel ARDL
Copyright: © 2023 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
1. Introduction
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// Africa lags significantly behind the global north in terms of the use of ICT and other
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ digital technologies in business activities, including agriculture, owing to the substantial
4.0/). financial investment and expertise required for providing digital technological services.

Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 3918. https://doi.org/10.3390/app13063918 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/applsci

Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 3918 2 of 30

While a large number of people now are hooked to the internet, fixed telephone, and
mobile phones in most developed countries compared to a couple of decades ago, the
use of digital technologies, however, is relatively less pronounced in Africa, particularly
in agriculture [1]. Estimates by Kuduma et al. [1], for example, indicate that only 13%
of smallholder farmers in sub-Saharan Africa have access to various digital technologies.
Indeed, internet penetration rate in sub-Saharan African countries has remained low. In
sub-Saharan Africa, the internet penetration (individuals using the internet) was 16% in
2015 and rose to 29% of the population as of 2020 [2].
There is an uneven adoption of information and communication technologies by
scale and geography within Africa. For instance, mobile money services dominate (85%)
in Kenya, with presence among more than half (55%) of the population in Ghana, less
than half (45%) in Tanzania, and relatively low (8%) in South Africa and Nigeria (4%) [1].
As of 2021, there were 515 million mobile services subscribers in sub-Saharan Africa,
representing about 46 percent of the population [3]. Recent estimates show that 40% of
the adult population is connected to mobile internet, whereas 44% of individuals live
in areas with mobile network coverage, but they do not use mobile internet services [3].
Notwithstanding the uneven coverage, a positive effect has been established between
mobile money services and financial inclusion, welfare, and other development outcomes
in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) [4–7].
Meanwhile, significant advances in the use of technology in agriculture in developed
economies have occurred in the last two–three decades, culminating in the birth of what is
termed “precision agriculture”, which involves machine software and sensors as well as
more contemporary agricultural technologies, such as drones, robots, and farm manage-
ment software. This development has occasioned the emergence of terminologies such as
digital farming [8], smart farming [9,10], agriculture 4.0 [11,12], and Farming 4.0 [13,14].
Technological advances have led to substantial improvements and scaling up of innovations
driven by terminologies such as the internet of things (IoT), cloud, artificial intelligence
(AI), gene editing, and big data in consolidating the fourth agricultural revolution [15,16].
Agriculture 4.0 involves the adoption of digital technologies in managing agricultural pro-
duction and processes [17,18] in monitoring production variables of interest [19] contingent
on the scientific dataset [12,20–22]. The data shape and guide food crop cultivation and
animal rearing up to processing [23,24], reducing production costs and minimizing wastage
by only using essential inputs [25,26]. Gacar et al. [27] argued that digital technologies
promote sustainable agriculture. Agriculture 4.0 includes the use of information and com-
munication technologies (including big data, IoT—internet of things, GPS—geographical
positioning systems) on farmers’ farms to improve efficiency and productivity [12,15,28,29].
Agriculture 4.0 steps in to effectively address the uncertainties in the agricultural value
chain [12,30].
More recently, the exigencies of the COVID-19 pandemic have made more apparent
the critical role of ICT in agricultural development and, hence, the need to ramp up use
of ICT in agricultural production in SSA and reap the potential benefits thereof. The
existing literature suggests that ICT facilitate information sharing including agricultural
extension and advisory services in emerging and developed economies, helping to reduce
information asymmetries and transaction costs [31–33]. Moreover, in the face of climate
variability and change, ICT significantly improve agricultural production, food security,
profitability, and sustainable agriculture [34].
Despite the apparent benefits of ICT, there is a lack of clarity on how information and
communication technologies have improved the welfare outcomes of smallholder farmers
in SSA. For instance, Goedde et al. [35], Harkin [36], and May et al. [37] indicated that ICT
and other digital technologies have only 30% of active users in SSA. The low deployment
or usage of ICT in agriculture in SSA is largely as a result of structural challenges and
infrastructural deficit (e.g., limited and differential access to electricity, mobile networks,
internet, fixed phone subscriptions, and access to technologies) that have persisted for
several years [1,34,38,39]. Other impediments using ICT and other digital technologies in
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 3918 3 of 30

SSA include language barriers, inappropriate policies, high cost of technology, accessibility,
socio-cultural factors, poor governing framework, low electronic literacy, and low digital
skills [34]. Moreover, rural areas remain less endowed in the digital ecosystems relative to
the urban areas [34,40]. In the context of these challenges, mobile phones have emerged
as the main tool for reducing the digital divide in Africa, helping to reduce post-harvest
losses, price volatility, save time and cost in agricultural extension delivery, and provide
timely information on prices, weather, financial service, and so on and so forth [41–43].
This article examines the research question of: What remains the impact of information
and communication technologies on agricultural production? This topic has received much
attention from researchers, particularly in the global north [44–47]. Despite the existing
body of knowledge, the estimation of the impact of information and communication tech-
nologies using proxies, such as mobile phone subscriptions, fixed telephone subscriptions,
and individuals using internet; and covariates, such as net national income per capita
and credit to the private sector covering SSA, have received less attention. The impact of
information and communication technologies on economic development and agricultural
production appears skewed towards the global north and Asia, with scarce evidence on
SSA [48], until recently [43]. For instance, studies [44,45] have explored the impact of
internet use on economic welfare in China. Li et al. [44] examined the ramifications of
internet use on good agricultural practices (GAP). Specifically, few program-specific and
country studies have examined the digital technology and agricultural production nexus
in Africa. Consequently, the literature [49–54] is scarce on the impact of information and
communication technologies on agricultural transformation. This motivated our interest to
explore the impacts of information and communication technologies on agricultural pro-
duction, including livestock production, which has been neglected in the ICT–agriculture
nexus literature.
The existing empirical literature on the impact of information and communication
technologies on agriculture in Africa is mostly based on micro data at either national or
subnational levels. Recent attempts to study the issue at the continental or cross-country
level include Nguimkeu and Okou [55] and Oyelami et al. [56]. While Nguimkeu and
Okou [55] broadly focused on the informal sector, Oyelami et al. [56] examined the impact
of ICTs on the agricultural sector performance in SSA using the panel autoregressive
distributed lag (ARDL) approach. This article makes three main contributions to the
literature on information and communication technologies agricultural production nexus.
First, our study extends beyond Oyelami et al. [56] to include additional independent
variables, such as net national income per capita; credit to private sector; and the rural
population. Second, our study is more holistic in examining the effect of information and
communication technologies on agricultural production. Recent attempts have examined
the impact of information and communication technologies on agriculture in terms of the
environmental, social, and economic outcomes, particularly relating to changes in farmers’
identities, values, and practices [57,58]. We capture agricultural production to include
both crops and livestock, which remain sparing in the extant literature, and also departure
from Oyelami et al. [56], which captured agricultural performance using value added.
Finally, we contribute to the estimation rigor using panel autoregressive distributed lag
(ARDL) to estimate the short- and long-run effects of information and communication
technologies on agricultural production, including the direction of causality with important
policy implications for Africa.
The objective of our paper, therefore, is to explore the impact of information and
communication technologies on agricultural production in Africa. Our study is novel
because it considered the impacts of information and communication on both crop and
livestock production in Africa using other covariates, such as rural population, per capita
income, and credit to the private sector. There is a dearth of empirical evidence on the
impact of ICTs on livestock and crop production with an African scope.
The rest of this article is organized as follows. Section 2 reviews the relevant literature
pertinent to the study, while Section 3 deals with the methodology. Section 4 presents
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 3918 4 of 30

the results, including the discussions, Section 5 concludes with policy implications and
recommendations, and the last section presents the limitations and future research direction.

2. Review of Empirical Literature

Empirical quantitative research on the effect of information and communication tech-
nologies on agricultural production in Africa has been conducted from two main method-
ological approaches. The first approach involves cross-country analysis, often using cross-
country panel data (e.g., [56,59,60]), while the other usually involves country-specific or
sub-country level studies using micro-level data (e.g., [61,62]). A strand of the literature
using the latter approach has sought to understand or describe the channels by which
information and communication technologies affect agricultural production and value
chains, characterize the stakeholders or actors driving this effect, as well as the factors shap-
ing the adoption and use of information and communication technologies in agriculture
(e.g., [41,63–65]). Generally, the quantitative evidence, particularly that using cross-country
data, is more scant, especially in Africa. This section presents a brief review of the existing
literature to help contextualize the key objectives of this study, as well as its contribution to
the scholarly literature.
The empirical evidence based on the analysis of cross-country panel data in Africa
suggests that information and communication technologies have a significant effect on
agricultural production (see, for example, [59,66]). Dagne and Oguamanam [67] assessed
the impact of ICTs on agricultural production using qualitative data. They found that ICTs
link small-scale producers to the markets. Ali et al. [66] assessed whether specific ICTs have
a significant impact on agricultural production. This study showed that ICT had a positive
but insignificant effect on net profit per acre [66]. It should be noted that the years after Ali
et al.’s study have seen the advent and growing penetration of many mobile-phone-based
digital innovations, such as mobile money, 3G/4G internet services, and other mobile phone
applications that could positively influence the relationship between the use of mobile
phone and agricultural production in many significant ways (see [68,69]). Ali et al. [66]
found additionally that the impact of ICTs, seed, fertilizer and credit significantly increased
agricultural productivity in Zambia. Unlike Ali et al. [66], a later study by Evans [59],
which also used panel data of African countries, showed that both mobile phones and
internet play significant roles in agricultural development in Africa. Evans [59] further
showed nonlinear effects where mobile phone penetration has an increasing positive effect
on agricultural value added, while internet usage has a U-shape effect on agricultural value
added. It is important to note that the study by Evans [59] covered 44 African countries
over a period of 15 years, from 2001 to 2015, as well as using system Generalized Method
of Moments (GMM) estimator, and these factors could account for different results on
mobile phones.
A more recent study by Oyelami et al. [56] focused on the effect of ICT infrastructure
on agricultural sector performance in sub-Saharan Africa, using agricultural value added
and agriculture products as a percentage of total merchandise export as the measures of
performance. While findings by Oyelami et al. [56] are qualitatively similar to the key
findings by Evans [59], their study presents additional important insights, particularly
through the use of analytical models that help to delineate the long-run and short-run
effects. With data covering 23 years (1995–2017) from 39 countries and employing panel
autoregressive distributed lag (ARDL) approach, where mobile cellular telephone subscrip-
tion and individual using internet were the key independent variables, Oyelami et al. [56]
found that ICT infrastructure has a positive effect on agricultural sector performance in
the long run but the same cannot be said of the short run. An equally recent study by
Suroso et al. [60], which specifically focused on the effect of internet on agricultural sector
performance and used panel data of 126 countries, including 32 countries from Africa,
covering a period of eight years (2012–2019), showed that internet users, fixed broadband
subscriptions, and secure internet servers have a significant and positive effect on agricul-
tural sector performance. However, further heterogeneity analysis by Suroso et al. [60]
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 3918 5 of 30

showed that this effect only pertains to countries from Africa, Asia, and Oceania, as well as
economies classified as emerging and developing.
In Africa, where agriculture is dominated by smallholder farmers, much of the micro-
level empirical evidence on the effect of information and communication technologies
on agricultural production has centered on smallholder farming. For example, based on
data from 200 smallholder farmers in Northern Nigeria, Sennuga et al. [62] found that
short message services (SMS text reminders) to the farmers had a positive and significant
effect on the agricultural productivity of the farmers. Similarly, Quandt et al. [61] exam-
ined the relationship between mobile phone use and agricultural yield using data from
179 farmers in four rural communities in Tanzania. Their results showed a positive associa-
tion between mobile phone use for agricultural activities and reported maize yields, with
many of the farmers also reporting increases in agricultural profits. A previous study by
Kabbiri et al. [64], which used an extended version of the technology acceptance model and
with data from 300 dairy farmers in Uganda analyzed using structural equation modeling,
however, showed that the use of mobile phones by farmers is mainly limited to normal
communication and that perceived ease of use of mobile phones is important for mobile
phone adoption among the farmers studied.
While some of the empirical micro-level evidence point to the important effect of
information and communication technologies, particularly mobile phones or mobile-phone-
based technology, on agricultural production, others have focused on what farmers with mo-
bile phones use them for in agricultural production activities [63,65,70]. Masuka et al. [70],
for example, studied 131 farmers in Marondera district of Mashonaland East province in
Zimbabwe and showed that they use their mobile phones for accessing advisory services,
accessing market information on inputs and produce, weather data, and for mobile phone
money transfers for transaction and crop insurance. Masuka et al. [70] argued that, through
the use of mobile phones, the farmers were able to make informed decisions and saved
time and transport cost. Ogbiede & Ele [65] investigated how farmers have applied mobile
phone technology with data from 328 smallholder farmers in Cross River State of Nigeria.
The main findings by Ogbiede & Ele [65] indicated that mobile phone use was most com-
mon among younger farmers with at least secondary education who mainly use mobile
phones for seeking market information. Mainly focusing on the youth, Irungu et al. [63]
explored ICT application in agriculture in Kenya and described various ICT-enabled av-
enues, including social media handles, voice messages, and SMS, used by the youth to
obtain production technologies, sharing production information, and money transactions.
Outside of Africa, and particularly in other developing contexts, evidence on the effect
of ICT on agriculture through micro studies has begun to emerge. Khan et al. [71] evaluated
the impact of mobile phone and internet usage on the selection of sales productivity
and marketing channels among 580 wheat growers from four districts in the Khyber
Pakhtunkhwa Province (KPK) of Pakistan. By applying propensity score matching and
Heckman’s two-step regression techniques, Khan et al. [71] found that mobile phone and
internet usage significantly improved the efficiency of selecting sales channels, increasing
agricultural profits and, consequently, positively affecting rural farmers’ income. Similarly,
an earlier study by Khan et al. [72] using a national dataset of 7987 rural households in
Afghanistan found that mobile phone usage and mobile phone promotion policy reduced
inorganic fertilizer application among the farmers, helping to ensure environmental and
agricultural sustainability goals. In rural Viet Nam, Kaila & Tarp [73] found through a
panel dataset (from 2008 to 2012) that internet access is associated with a 6.8% increase in
total agricultural output as a result of more efficient use of fertilizer, particularly among
younger households and in the less developed northern provinces of Viet Nam.
Ma et al. [45] established that internet use meaningfully increased rural households’
income and expenditure in China. Zheng et al. [46] found that using the internet positively
impacts the technical efficiency of farmers producing banana in China. Jensen [42] showed
that mobile phones significantly impacted on post-harvest losses, profit, and price volatility
among fishermen in Kerala in India.
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 3918 6 of 30

In summary, we observed a paucity of information using cross-country data covering

sub-Saharan African countries that illuminate the impact of information and communi-
cation technologies on agricultural production. Rather, silos of studies that use country-
specific cases dominate. There is, therefore, the need to have more cross-country studies
to bridge the unbalanced literature, particularly with policy implications for the global
south. Studies on information and communication technologies have overly concentrated
on mobile phones and internet, with limited consideration of the vast array of ICTs (radio,
television, computers, smartphones, and tablets). Conspicuously missing in most of the lit-
erature is the consideration of variables such as net national income per capita; credit to the
private sector; rural population; and its impact on agricultural production (crop and live-
stock production) using rigorous estimation approaches such as the panel autoregressive
distributed lag model (ARDL). Our study seeks to fill the lacuna in the literature.

3. Methodology
3.1. Data Source
This paper focused on the African continent, where access to information and com-
munication technologies is still low. We used data from 32 countries in Africa (see Table 1
for details).

Table 1. List of countries studied.

S/No Country
1 Algeria
2 Angola
3 Benin
4 Botswana
5 Burkina Faso
6 Burundi
7 Cape Verde
8 Cameroon
9 Chad
10 Congo Democratic Republic
11 Côte d’Ivoire
12 Djibouti
13 Egypt
14 Gabon
15 Ghana
16 Kenya
17 Lesotho
18 Mali
19 Mauritania
20 Mauritius
21 Morocco
22 Mozambique
23 Namibia
24 Nigeria
25 Sao Tome and Principe
26 Senegal
27 South Africa
28 Tanzania
29 Togo
30 Tunisia
31 Uganda
32 Zambia

Table 2 presents the description of variables and data source.

Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 3918 7 of 30

Table 2. Description of variables and data source.

Variables Source
Crop production index (2014–2016 = 100) World Development Indicators of World Bank
Fixed telephone subscriptions (number of persons) World Development Indicators of World Bank
Livestock production index (2014–2016 = 100) World Development Indicators of World Bank
Individuals using the internet (% of population) World Development Indicators of World Bank
Mobile cellular subscriptions (number of persons) World Development Indicators of World Bank
Adjusted net national income per capita (current US$) World Development Indicators of World Bank
Domestic credit to private sector by banks (% of GDP) World Development Indicators of World Bank
Rural population (% of population) World Development Indicators of World Bank
Link to the data: https://databank.worldbank.org/source/world-development-indicators#. Accessed 22 October 2022.

Each variable has 512 values, i.e., 32 countries multiplied by 16 years.

3.2. Analytical Technique

The paper applied the panel autoregressive distributed lag (ARDL) framework to
estimate the relationship between information and communication technologies and agri-
cultural production (proxied by crop production index and livestock production index)
in Africa and used STATA 17 software for the analysis, as applied by Chidiebere-Mark
et al. [74] and Emenekwe et al. [75] in their studies in Africa. One important feature of
the panel ARDL framework is ability to determine long-run relationships between the
dependent and independent variables and being free from the endogenous problem [76].
The Pesaran Cross-sectional Augmented Dickey–Fuller (CADF) and Im–Pesaran–Shin unit-
root test were used to determine the existence of unit roots among the variables, while the
Pedroni test and Westerlund test were applied to test whether the variables are cointegrated.
The panel autoregressive distributed lag was used to compute the long- and short-run
impacts of the independent variables on the dependent variable.
The implicit model of our panel autoregressive distributed lag framework is stated
as follows:
Yk = f ( X1, X2, X3, X4, X5, X6, e) (1)
where:
Yk = agricultural production;
X1 = individuals using the internet (% of population);
X2 = mobile cellular subscriptions (number of persons);
X3 = fixed telephone subscriptions (number of persons);
X4 = adjusted net national income per capita (current USD)
X5 = domestic credit to private sector by banks (% of GDP);
X6 = rural population (% of total population);
e = error term;
k = 1 (crop production index), 2 (livestock production index).
To control for possible heteroskedasticity in our dataset, we converted the real values
of the variables to their logarithmic values. The panel autoregressive distributed lag model
with the logarithms is presented thus:

ln Yit = β 0 + β 1 ln X1it + β 2 ln X2it + β 3 ln X3it + β 4 ln X4it + β 5 ln X5it + β 6 ln X6it + ε it (2)

where i: 1, 2, 3, . . . , 32 countries; t: 2004, 2005, 2006, . . . , 2019 year; ln denotes

natural logarithm; and ε is the error term. Furthermore, β 1 , β 2 , β 3 , β 4 , β 5 , and β 6 define
the estimated percentage change in agricultural production (crop production index and
livestock production index) caused by a one percent change in internet use, mobile cellular
subscriptions, fixed telephone subscriptions, net national income, credit to the private
sector, and rural population, respectively, while all other factors are constant.
Standard panel regressions as the expressed model in Equation (2) can be used to
estimate efficiently and consistently if all the variables are stationary at levels. In a situation
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 3918 8 of 30

where some variables are stationary at levels and others stationary at first difference, a
dynamic model for panel data with cointegration is required, such as the Pooled Mean
Group (PMG) and Dynamic Fixed Effect (DFE) models. To understand the long-run
impacts and the long-run adjustment rate, it is necessary to identify each country’s short-
run dynamics. The long- and short-run effects of ICTs and covariates (such as net national
income, domestic credit to the private sector, and rural population) on crop production
index over time and across different African countries using the panel ARDL can be
estimated thus:
p p
∆lnY it = β i + β 1i lnX1i,t−1 + β 2i lnX2i,t−1 + β 3i lnX3i,t−1 + ∑ j=1 1 γ1ij ∆lnYi,t− j + ∑ j=2 1 γ2ij ∆lnX1i,t− j
p p p p
+∑ j=3 1 γ3ij ∆lnX2i,t− j + ∑ j=4 1 γ4ij ∆lnX3i,t− j + ∑ j=5 1 γ2ij ∆lnX4i,t− j + ∑ j=6 1 γ3ij ∆lnX6i,t− j (3)
p
+∑ j=7 1 γ4ij ∆lnX6i,t− j + eit

where ∆ denotes first differences, β i is a constant, γnij(n=1,...,7) denote short-run coeffi-

cients, β mi(m=1,...,6) are long-run coefficients, and eit is an error term. Equation (3) could be
restated with an error correction term as follows:
p p p p
∆lnY it = ϑi + ∑ j=1 1 γ1ij ∆lnYi,t− j + ∑ j=2 1 γ2ij ∆lnX1i,t− j + ∑ j=3 1 γ3ij ∆lnX2i,t− j + ∑ j=4 1 γ4ij ∆lnX3i,t− j
p p p (4)
+∑ j=5 1 γ5ij ∆lnX4i,t− j + ∑ j=6 1 γ6ij ∆lnX5i,t− j + ∑ j=7 1 γ7ij ∆lnX6i,t− j + λi ECT i,t−1 + eit
where ECT i,t−1 is the error correction term.
The paper applied the Dumitrescu and Hurlin [77] panel causality test to determine
causality among variables. The model of the Granger causality is written:

J J
∑ λi y i ( t − j ) + ∑ βi xi(t− j) + µit
j j
yit = αi + (5)
j −1 j =1

j
where y and x are the observables. λi denotes the panel autoregressive parameters, while
j
β i denotes the regression coefficient estimates, and both are assumed to vary across cross-
sections. The null and alternative hypotheses are stated as follows:
j j
Ho : ∀ j : β i = 0 Ho : ∀ j : β i 6= 0 (6)

4. Results and Discussion

4.1. Summary Statistics
Table 3 presents the descriptive statistics of the variables used in the analyses. On
average, 769,139 individuals are subscribed to fixed telephones in the 32 African countries.
With regards to the crop production index, the minimum recorded throughout the period
under study (2004–2019) for the aforementioned African countries is approximately 40,
whereas the maximum production is approximately 172. Moreover, the average livestock
production index recorded for these countries is approximately 94. We observed an uneven
patronage of internet across countries, with some countries being very high, whilst other
remained very low. Thus, one country among the 32 African countries recorded high 74.4%
(maximum) internet patronage, whereas another recorded less than 1% (i.e., 0.20%) of its
populace using the internet. On average, internet patronage stands at 16.3%, as shown in
Table 3. This gives a clear indication of the low subscription to the internet in the majority
of the African countries.
Although the maximum adjusted net income per capita recorded from our summary
statistics is USD 11,114.26, most of the countries studied belong to the low-income economy.
From the description given by the World Bank of the gross national income per capita,
a country whose gross national income per capita is less than USD 4255.00 falls under
the low-income or lower-middle-income category [78]. Hence, the average adjusted net
income per capita (USD 1915.03) and the median (USD 1151.36) reported in the summary
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 3918 9 of 30

statistics table indicate that most of the countries under study fall in the low-income or
lower-middle-income category [79].

Table 3. Descriptive statistics (N = 512).

Std.
Variables Median Minimum Maximum Mean Skewness Kurtosis
Deviation
Fixed telephone
138,584.00 0.00 11,852,539.00 769,139.15 1,783,668.60 3.645 14.582
subscriptions
Crop production index
94.67 40.18 172.26 92.0869 19.62481 −0.005 0.907
(2014–2016 = 100)
Livestock production
96.32 49.48 134.54 93.9289 14.98644 −0.163 0.568
index (2014–2016 = 100)
Individuals using the
internet (% of 9.15 0.20 74.38 16.29 17.11 1.252 0.608
population)
Mobile cellular
6,450,319.50 7745.00 184,592,255.00 16,729,760.59 26,294,996.51 3.042 11.313
subscriptions
Adjusted net national
income per capita 1151.36 65.07 11,114.26 1915.03 1842.35 1.857 4.121
(current USD)
Domestic credit to
private sector by banks 18.91 1.07 106.26 25.89 20.00 1.501 1.856
(% of GDP)
Rural population (% of
56.02 10.26 90.86 53.71 17.66 −0.165 −0.501
total population)

As it is widely acknowledged, the private sector is one of the most important sectors
that drive the economic growth of every country [79]. Per the results in Table 3, the
maximum domestic credit given to the private sector by banks in the countries studied
is 106.3%, whilst the lowest domestic credit given to the private sector by local banks is
approximately 1.1%. On average, domestic credit given to the private sector by banks in
these 32 African countries is approximately 25.9%, while the median is 18.91%.
We observed that the maximum rural population recorded in the summary statistics
results is 90.86%, whilst the minimum recorded is 10.26%. The average rural population of
the studied countries is 53.71%, while the standard deviation is 17.66%.

4.2. Trend of the Dependent and Independent Variables

Figure 1 presents the trend of crop production index across the 32 different African
countries from 2004 to 2019. We observe that most of the countries had an upward trend in
the crop production index. Whilst some countries had a fairly stable trend, others had a
downward trend. Specifically, Mauritius has been witnessing a decline in its crop produc-
tion index since the year 2004. There has been a slow rise since 2017. Moreover, countries
such as Namibia, Sao Tome and Principle, and Nigeria have seen a fairly flat/stable crop
production for almost two decades now. Cabo Verde had a stable trend from 2004 to 2013
and, since then, has had a negative slope (i.e., it has been experiencing a downward trend
since 2013). South Africa shows an interesting pattern, where the country experienced a
fairly stable rate in the crop production index from 2004 to 2013 and had experienced a
steep decline from 2013 to 2015. It also had a steep rise from 2015 to 2017 and has taken a
steep decline to 2019.
Figure 2 also presents the trend of livestock production index across different African
countries from 2004 to 2019. The figure generally depicts a mixture of all trends. Countries
such as Congo Democratic Republic, Nigeria, Gabon, and Egypt exhibited a fairly stable
trend, whereas Chad, Angola, Ghana, and Togo saw an upward trend in their livestock
production index. Countries such as Senegal, Tanzania, and Morocco had also seen an
upward trend in their livestock production index. Botswana, Djibouti, and Mali also had
an undulating trend.
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 33

Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 3918 per capita income. Similarly, the trend of domestic credit to the private sector by10banks
of 30
across different African countries from 2004 to 2019 shown in Figure 8 indicates that in
many African countries, credit to the private sector is increasing.

Figure 1. Trend of crop production index across different African countries from 2004 to 2019.
Figure 1. Trend of crop production index across different African countries from 2004 to 2019.
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 3918 11 of 30
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 33

Figure 2. Trend of livestock production index across different African countries from 2004 to 2019.
Figure 2. Trend of livestock production index across different African countries from 2004 to 2019.

Regarding the trend of fixed telephone subscriptions as shown in Figure 3, we observe

that most of the countries have had a stable trend since 2004. In addition to the stable trends
in these countries, it can be seen clearly that the subscriptions are very low. Interestingly, it
is only Algeria that recorded an upward trend in fixed telephone subscriptions. Although
Egypt exhibited an undulating trend, it is the country that had the highest fixed telephone
subscriptions among the 32 African countries under study.
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 3918 12 of 30
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 13 of 33

Figure 3. Trend of fixed telephone subscriptions across different African countries from 2004 to
Figure 3. Trend of fixed telephone subscriptions across different African countries from 2004 to 2019.
2019.

The trend of individuals using the internet across the different African countries from
2004 to 2019 exhibited in Figure 4 shows a positive slope. Thus, almost all the countries
under study have been increasing their internet patronage since the year 2000. It can be
noticed that Burundi and Chad exhibited a fairly stable trend in their internet patronage.
Although they are stable, their stability is at the very bottom of the graph (i.e., they have
very low internet patronage). Regarding the countries with the upward trends, they have
exhibited high internet patronage with time.
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 3918 13 of 30
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 14 of 33

Figure 4. Trend of individuals using the internet across different African countries from 2004 to
2019.4. Trend of individuals using the internet across different African countries from 2004 to 2019.
Figure

Regarding the trend of mobile cellular subscription as shown in Figure 5, a majority

of the countries had a fairly stable trend, with the exception of countries such as Ghana,
Nigeria, Tanzania, South Africa, and Egypt. These countries (i.e., Ghana, Nigeria, Tanzania,
South Africa, and Egypt) recorded an upward trend in mobile cellular subscriptions. It
can be seen clearly from Figure 5 that Nigeria has the highest number of mobile cellular
subscriptions among the countries under study.
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 3918 14 of 30
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 15 of 33

Figure 5. Trend of mobile cellular subscriptions across different African countries from 2004 to
Figure 5. Trend of mobile cellular subscriptions across different African countries from 2004 to 2019.
2019.

The rural population trend in Figure 6 shows that most of the countries exhibit a
decreasing trend in percentage of the population living in rural Africa. It can be noticed
that all the countries studied exhibit a decreasing trend in rural population, with the lines
in the graphs sloping downwards. This may be an indication of increasing urbanization
fueled by migration to urban areas in Africa. Burkina Faso, Burundi, Chad, Tanzania, and
Uganda had the highest percentage of their population living in rural areas among the
countries studied.
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 3918 15 of 30
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 16 of 33

Figure 6. Trend of rural population across different African countries from 2004 to 2019.
Figure 6. Trend of rural population across different African countries from 2004 to 2019.

Trend of net national income per capita across different African countries from 2004
to 2019 in Figure 7 shows that most of the countries studied exhibited increasing trend in
per capita income. Similarly, the trend of domestic credit to the private sector by banks
across different African countries from 2004 to 2019 shown in Figure 8 indicates that in
many African countries, credit to the private sector is increasing.
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 3918 16 of 30
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 17 of 33

Figure 7. Trend of net national income per capita across different African countries from 2004 to
Figure 7. Trend of net national income per capita across different African countries from 2004 to 2019.
2019.
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 3918 17 of 30
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 18 of 33

Figure 8. Trend of domestic credit to the private sector by banks across different African countries
Figure 8. Trend
from 2004 of domestic credit to the private sector by banks across different African countries
to 2019.
from 2004 to 2019.
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 3918 18 of 30

4.3. Cross-Section Dependence Test

We rejected the null hypothesis of cross-section independence and infer the presence
of cross-section dependence in our dataset, as shown by the p-values in Table 4.

Table 4. Cross-section dependence test.

Variable CD-Test p-Value

lnY1 44.00 0.000
lnY2 43.01 0.000
lnX1 85.04 0.000
lnX2 87.02 0.000
lnX3 7.99 0.000
lnX4 67.91 0.000
lnX5 42.08 0.000
lnX6 23.19 0.000
Variable list: Y1 = crop production index; Y2 = livestock production index; X1 = individuals using the internet
(% of population); X2 = mobile cellular subscriptions (number of persons); X3 = fixed telephone subscriptions
(number of persons); X4 = adjusted net national income per capita (current USD); X5 = domestic credit to private
sector by banks (% of GDP); X6 = rural population (% of total population).

4.4. Multicollinearity Test for the Explanatory Variables

To determine whether the independent variables used in this paper are collinear, we
subjected the explanatory variables to multicollinearity test using the variance inflation factor
test. The result is presented in Table 5. The independent variables do not show the presence
of multicollinearity, as none of the variance inflation factor values exceeded 5, which is
a reasonable cut-off point for multicollinearity. Researchers have recommended variance
inflation factors of less than 5 as an acceptable threshold for multicollinearity [74,75].

Table 5. Multicollinearity test using variance inflation factor (VIF).

Variable Variance Inflation Factor (VIF)

lnX1 1.872
lnX2 3.467
lnX3 1.891
lnX4 3.452
lnX5 2.564
lnX6 2.090
Variable list: Y1 = crop production index; Y2 = livestock production index; X1 = individuals using the internet
(% of population); X2 = mobile cellular subscriptions (number of persons); X3 = fixed telephone subscriptions
(number of persons); X4 = adjusted net national income per capita (current USD); X5 = domestic credit to private
sector by banks (% of GDP); X6 = rural population (% of total population).

4.5. Unit Roots Test of the Variables

It is customary to test the stationarity or otherwise before conducting an autoregres-
sive distributed lag modeling [80–82]. This paper applied the Pesaran Cross-sectional
Augmented Dickey–Fuller (CADF) and Im–Pesaran–Shin unit-root tests to determine sta-
tionarity of our dataset. The result of the unit-root test is presented in Table 6. The result
shows that crop production index, livestock production index, mobile phone subscriptions,
domestic credit provided to the private sector, and rural population were stationary at level
under the Pesaran Cross-sectional Augmented Dickey–Fuller (CADF) test, while mobile
phone subscriptions and rural population were stationary at level under the Im–Pesaran–
Shin unit-root test. Individuals using internet, fixed telephone subscriptions, and net
national income per capita have unit roots under the Pesaran Cross-sectional Augmented
Dickey–Fuller (CADF) test, while crop production index, livestock production index, indi-
viduals using internet, fixed telephone subscriptions, net national income per capita, and
domestic credit provided to the private sector have unit roots under the Im–Pesaran–Shin
unit-root test. However, all the variables were stationary at the first difference under the
Pesaran Cross-sectional Augmented Dickey–Fuller (CADF) and Im–Pesaran–Shin unit-root
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 3918 19 of 30

tests. This suggests that the panel ARDL model is appropriate in this case to model the
impact of the independent variables on the dependent variable. Since all the variables were
stable at first differencing, a further test to establish if there was a cointegration between
the variables was conducted using the Pedroni test and Westerlund test.

Table 6. Unit root test.

H 0 = All Panels Contain Unit Roots

H 0 = Series Have a Unit Roots
Pesaran’s CADF Test
At First
At Level I(0)
Difference I(1)
Variable t-Statistic t-Statistic Decision: H 0 Result
lnY1 −2.255 *** −3.021 *** Reject I(0) at 1%
lnY2 −2.035 ** −2.503 *** Reject I(0) at 5%
lnX1 −2.014 −2.102 ** Reject I(1) at 5%
lnX2 −2.563 *** −2.956 *** Reject I(0) at 1%
lnX3 −1.795 −2.333 *** Reject I(1) at 1%
lnX4 −1.668 −2.740 *** Reject I(1) at 1%
lnX5 −2.185 *** −2.608 *** Reject I(0) at 1%
lnX6 −2.327 *** −3.399 *** Reject I(0) at 1%
Im–Pesaran–Shin unit-root test
At First
At Level I(0)
Difference I(1)
Variable t-Statistic t-Statistic Decision: H 0 Result
lnY1 −0.8175 −8.6710 *** Reject I(1) at 1%
lnY2 0.2771 −5.1729 *** Reject I(1) at 1%
lnX1 0.2727 −3.3191 *** Reject I(1) at 1%
lnX2 −2.3181 ** −3.5185 *** Reject I(0) at 5%
lnX3 2.0290 −3.9593 *** Reject I(1) at 1%
lnX4 −0.1403 −5.9441 *** Reject I(1) at 1%
lnX5 −0.2970 −3.9756 *** Reject I(1) at 1%
lnX6 1.000 −13.347 *** Reject I(1) at 1%
Note: ** and *** indicate significance at 5% and 1% levels, respectively. Variable list: Y1 = crop production index;
Y2 = livestock production index; X1 = individuals using the internet (% of population); X2 = mobile cellular
subscriptions (number of persons); X3 = fixed telephone subscriptions (number of persons); X4 = adjusted net
national income per capita (current USD); X5 = domestic credit to private sector by banks (% of GDP); X6 = rural
population (% of total population).

4.6. Cointegration Test

The cointegration test presented in Table 7 reveals a long-run relationship between
the dependent variables (crop production and livestock production) and independent
variables (internet usage, fixed telephone subscriptions, mobile cellular subscriptions, net
national income, credit to the private sector, and rural population). The results of the
cointegration test using the Pedroni test and Westerlund test in Table 7 were all statistically
significant, confirming the existence of cointegration between the dependent variables
(crop production and livestock production) and independent variables (internet usage,
fixed telephone subscriptions, mobile cellular subscriptions, net national income, credit to
the private sector, and rural population) in Africa between 2004 and 2019.

4.7. Panel ARDL Elasticities of Impacts of Digital Tools on Agricultural Production

The Hausman test, which is a test for model misspecification helps detect endogenous
variables in a model. With regards to the panel ARDL estimations, the pooled mean group
(PMG) and dynamic fixed effect (DFE) estimators were employed. Since the aforementioned
estimators’ function under different assumptions, it is prudent to employ the Hausman test
to determine the most efficient estimator (i.e., among PMG and DFE) for the analysis. The
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 3918 20 of 30

results garnered after performing the Hausman test on the two estimators indicate that the
PMG estimator is the preferred estimator between the two estimators (Table 8). Thus, the
PMG estimator was preferred for both the crop production category and livestock category.
Henceforth, the PMG estimator is the most efficient estimator for the analysis as compared
to the DFE estimator.

Table 7. Cointegration test.

H0: No Cointegration
Ha: All Panels Are Cointegrated
Pedroni Test for Cointegration Crop Production Index Livestock Production Index
Test Statistic p-Value Statistic p-Value
Modified Phillips–Perron t 7.6234 0.0000 8.6877 0.0000
Phillips–Perron t −20.8984 0.0000 −9.3796 0.0000
Augmented Dickey–Fuller t −13.8666 0.0000 −7.5080 0.0000
Westerlund Test for Cointegration Crop Production Livestock Production
Test Statistic p-Value Statistic p-Value
Variance ratio −1.9163 0.03 −1.5991 0.05

Since the PMG estimator was the most efficient estimator among the three estimators,
the study reported the PMG results. The results of the panel ARDL (using the PMG
estimation technique) on the relationship between digital technologies and agricultural
production (proxied by crop production and livestock production) in Africa can also be
found in Table 8. Considering the long-run relationship, the results indicate that internet
usage is statistically significant at 1% for crop production. Notice that the coefficient for
internet usage recorded under the crop production is positive (0.071). Thus, the usage of
internet positively influences crop production in these African countries listed in Table 1.
All other things being equal, a percentage increase in the patronage of internet in these
32 African countries will increase their crop production index by 0.071%. This can be
related to a recent study by Ma et al. [83] (2022), where they explored the influence of
internet patronage on farmers’ organic fertilizer application behavior. They established
that internet significantly influences organic fertilizer positively, hence influencing crop
production positively. On the other hand, the coefficient recorded for internet usage under
the livestock production category was positive (0.017) but statistically insignificant. As
more individuals in these countries patronize internet, the production of livestock increases
too. This result is in line with expectation. The literature records a positive relationship
between internet usage and livestock production (see [84–86]).
The next independent variable under consideration (mobile cellular subscription)
was also statistically significant. The finding shows that mobile cellular subscription was
statistically significant at 5% and 1%, respectively, under crop production and livestock
production categories. The estimate recorded under the crop production was negative
(−0.022). All other things being equal, a percentage increase in the mobile cellular sub-
scription in the 32 African countries will decrease their crop production by approximately
0.022%. Thus, as more of the populace subscribes to a public mobile telephone service that
provides access to the PSTN using cellular technology, these countries are highly probable
to suffer a decline in their crop production index. The coverage of mobile phone networks
in Africa is low and largely in urban areas where crop production is rarely practiced. Even
those in rural areas with mobile cellular subscriptions may not use their mobile phones for
obtaining agricultural production information and rather use the phones simply to connect
with family and friends [61,87,88]. Therefore, owning a phone does not guarantee that the
owner uses it to gather crop production information [89]. Further research is needed to
explore the actual use of mobile phones by crop farmers. However, the estimate recorded
under the livestock was positive. Thus, as more of the populace subscribes to a public
mobile telephone service that provides access to the PSTN using cellular technology, these
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 3918 21 of 30

countries will increase their livestock production. This result can be related to the study by
Houghton [90], who investigated the relationship between mobile cellular and livestock
and established a stronger influence of mobile phone ownership and livestock production.
Likewise, Nedumaran et al. [91] also emphasized that there is an impact of mobile phone
patronage on crop production. The literature [1,64], however, shows that the use of mobile
money accounts has inured positively to farmers’ advantage.

Table 8. Panel ARDL results from pooled mean group and dynamic fixed effect estimators.

Variables Crop Production Livestock Production

PMG DFE PMG DFE
Panel A: Long-Run Estimates
lnX1 0.071 0.148 0.017 0.039
(10.72) *** (5.56) *** (0.97) (0.91)
lnX2 −0.022 −0.017 0.077 0.106
(−1.97) ** (−0.50) (5.17) *** (1.90) *
lnX3 −0.031 −0.015 −0.079 0.008
(−3.87) *** (−1.28) (−6.17) *** (0.41)
lnX4 0.079 0.001 0.106 0.018
(4.46) *** (0.01) (2.42) ** (0.15)
lnX5 0.006 0.141 0.392 0.009
(0.44) (2.34) ** (6.72) *** (0.09)
lnX6 −0.293 −0.183 1.507 0.022
(−10.34) *** (−0.72) (5.99) *** (0.05)
Panel B: Short-Run Estimates
ECT 0.690 0.481 0.191 0.170
(6.47) *** (11.94) *** (4.42) *** (6.16) ***
∆lnX1 −0.051 −0.043 −0.018 0.003
(−1.14) (−1.22) (−0.38) (0.14)
∆lnX2 0.120 0.007 0.008 0.007
(1.96) ** (0.17) (0.27) (0.27)
∆lnX3 −0.089 −0.002 −0.014 0.0002
(−1.77) * (−0.19) (−0.25) (0.03)
∆lnX4 0.102 0.091 −0.005 0.038
(0.87) (1.79)* (−0.08) (1.31)
∆lnX5 0.022 −0.038 −0.003 −0.006
(0.19) (−0.88) (−0.06) (−0.23)
∆lnX6 1.969 −0.247 0.656 −0.061
(1.33) (−0.22) (0.78) (−0.10)
Constant −3.857 −2.335 0.754 −0.404
(−6.27) *** (−4.14) * (4.87) *** (−1.29)
Observations 512 512 512 512
Hausman test of poolability (H0 : difference in coefficients not systematic)
Crop production Livestock production
PMG and DFE PMG and DFE
χ2 (6) 2.32 0.07
p-value 0.8885 1.000
The PMG is preferred over The PMG is preferred over
Decision
the DFE the DFE
Note: z-values are presented in parenthesis. *** denotes statistical significance at 1%, ** denotes statistical
significance at 5%, and * denotes statistical significance at 10%. Variable list: Y1 = crop production index;
Y2 = livestock production index; X1 = individuals using the Internet (% of population); X2 = mobile cellular
subscriptions (number of persons); X3 = fixed telephone subscriptions (number of persons); X4 = adjusted net
national income per capita (current USD); X5 = domestic credit to private sector by banks (% of GDP); X6 = rural
population (% of total population).

The variable “fixed telephone subscription” recorded negative and statistically sig-
nificant relationships with crop production and livestock production. It was statistically
significant at 1% and recorded a negative estimate (−0.031). Ceteris paribus, a percentage
increase in the subscription of the fixed telephones in these African countries would de-
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 3918 22 of 30

crease their crop production index by approximately 0.03%. Thus, as more of the populace
subscribes to fixed telephones in these countries, their crop production index is expected to
decrease in the long run. On the other hand, the fixed telephone subscription was highly
significant (statistically significant at 1%). It also recorded a coefficient of −0.079. Thus,
holding all other variables constant, a percentage increase in the subscription of fixed
telephones in these African countries will decrease their crop production by approximately
0.079%. This implies that, as more of the populace from the aforementioned countries
subscribes to the fixed telephone, the livestock production in these countries is expected
to decline in the long run. Oyelami et al. [56] in their research found a long-run relation-
ship between fixed telephone subscriptions with both crop and livestock production. The
probable reason for the negative relationship between fixed telephone use and crop and
livestock production could be due to the fact that fixed telephone subscription is low in the
continent and they are not usually subscribed by farmers.
We observed that the variable “adjusted net national income per capita” was statis-
tically significant under both crop production and livestock production categories. This
implies that adjusted net national income per capita has a long-run relationship with both
crop production and livestock production. It also recorded a coefficient of 0.106 for livestock
production and 0.079 for crop production. Thus, the adjusted net national income per capita
has a positive influence on crop and livestock production in these African countries. Statis-
tically, livestock production in these African countries is expected to increase by 0.106%
when there is an increase in the adjusted net national income per capita of these countries by
a unit. Moreover, crop production index in these African countries is expected to increase
by 0.079% when there is an increase in the adjusted net national income per capita of these
countries by a unit. In a nutshell, we expect both crop and livestock production in these
countries to increase in these counties in the long run when their adjusted net national
income per capita increases.
Ironically, the variable “domestic credit to the private sector by bank” was not statisti-
cally significant under crop production category. This implies that the variable “domestic
credit to private sector by bank” does not have a long-run relationship with crop produc-
tion in these African countries. However, domestic credit to the private sector statistically
increased livestock production. A unit increase in domestic credit to the private sector
by the bank would increase livestock production index by 0.392. Credit is important in
agricultural production [82].
Rural population was statistically significant at 1% for both crop and the livestock
production categories. Again, the estimates recorded for rural population under the
crop production and livestock production categories were −0.293 and 1.507, respectively.
Thus, rural population negatively affects crop production but positively affects livestock
production in the aforementioned 32 African countries. All other things being equal, a unit
increase in rural population will decrease crop production by approximately 0.293%. On the
other hand, we expect livestock production to increase by approximately 1.507% when there
is a unit increase in rural population. In brief, we expect crop production to decrease in the
long run when the rural population increases. This may be connected to increasing youth
migration out of the rural areas to urban areas, which leaves a burden on the agricultural
workforce. Livestock production is expected to increase in the long run when the rural
population increases. This result conforms to most of the related literature [92–94].
With regards to the short-run results, notice that two out of the six variables were
statistically significant under the crop production category and none were statistically
significant under the livestock production category.
The first variable to consider under the short relationship is the mobile cellular sub-
scriptions. From Table 8, it can clearly be seen that the variable is statistically significant
under crop production. This implies that mobile cellular subscriptions have a significant
influence on crop production in the 32 African countries in the short run. Holding all
other variables constant, a percentage increase in mobile cellular subscriptions increased
crop production in the aforementioned 32 African countries by approximately 0.12% in
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 3918 23 of 30

the short run. Mobile cellular subscriptions are not statistically significant for livestock
production. This indicates that the variable “mobile cellular subscription” has no influence
on livestock production in the 32 African countries in the short run. Chavula [50] observed
similar findings using 10-year panel data, where they indicated that mobile phones had an
insignificant impact on production.
We note that the variable “fixed telephone subscriptions” was not statistically signifi-
cant under the livestock production category. Thus, fixed telephone subscription has no
effect on livestock production in the 32 African countries in the short run. On the other
hand, the variable was statistically significant at 10%. It also recorded an estimate of −0.089.
This indicates a negative relationship between fixed telephone subscriptions and crop
production in these countries in the short run. All other things being equal, an increase in
fixed telephone subscriptions will decrease crop production in these African countries by
approximately 0.089%. Thus, we expect crop production in these African countries to de-
cline in the short run when more individuals patronize the internet. This result contradicts
Chavula [50], who observed that fixed telephone lines positively impacted crop production.

4.8. Granger Test for Panel Causality

After examining whether there is a long-run relationship among our variables, it is
appropriate to examine potential causal relationships among these variables. In deter-
mining the causal relationships among these variables, we employed the Dumitrescu and
Hurlin [77] Granger test. Since the panel ARDL results (Table 8) establish the existence of
long-run relationships among the variables, we are certain that Granger causality exists in
at least one direction for each two-variable combination. Notice that the lag error terms
( ECT t−1 ) for internet patronage, mobile cellular subscription, fixed telephone subscription,
adjusted net national income per capita, domestic credit to private sector by bank, and
rural population were significant at the 1% significance level. This confirms the existence of
at least a bidirectional causal relationship among the covariates and the response variables.
From the Dumitrescu and Hurlin test (Table 9), it can be seen clearly that majority of
the Granger–causality relationship type found among the variables is bidirectional. Notice
that bidirectional causality is found between crop production and internet patronage by
populace of the 32 aforementioned African countries. Thus, crop production Granger
causes internet patronage and internet patronage; also, Granger causes crop production.
It can also be seen that there exists a bidirectional causality between livestock production
and individuals using internet. From this knowledge, it can be said that livestock produc-
tion Granger causes internet patronage, whereas internet patronage Granger also causes
livestock production. The evidence provided from the analysis is not alien to the recent
literature on agriculture production. In recent times, the use of internet in households and
workplaces has been on the rise. The internet has become an integral part of life; it is now
an essential global communications technology for business that aids in optimum dissemi-
nation of information and reduces the cost associated with interactions [95]. The adoption
of internet in the agricultural industry has improved the efficiency and effectiveness in the
sector [96]. The use of internet in the agricultural sector has aided in the following: access
to market prices and products’ information, access to government and academic reports
and research results, interaction with other farmers and agricultural specialists, purchase of
inputs, sales of produce, communication with suppliers and buyers, and access to software
applications [96–98].
Similar to the relationship found between crop production and internet patronage,
the relationship between crop production and mobile cellular subscription is bidirectional.
Thus, crop production Granger causes mobile cellular subscription and mobile cellular
subscription Granger also causes crop production. With regards to the other livestock
production, the relationship type found with mobile cellular subscription is unidirectional.
Thus, livestock production Granger causes mobile phone subscriptions; however mobile
phone subscriptions Granger does not cause livestock production. Higher livestock pro-
duction may lead to higher incomes that allow more mobile subscriptions and, at the same
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 3918 24 of 30

time, if non-subscribers see that subscription owners have higher production efficiency,
that may be a motivation for them to subscribe too.

Table 9. Dumitrescu and Hurlin (D-H) Granger non-causality test results.

Hypothesis Z-Bar Z-Bar Tilde Conclusion

lnY1 → lnX1 4.5283 *** 14.1133 ***
Bidirectional causality identified between crop production and individuals using internet
lnX1 → lnY1 5.2503 *** 3.1627 ***
lnY1 → lnX2 14.7412 *** 9.9076 ***
Bidirectional causality identified between crop production and mobile phone subscriptions
lnX2 → lnY1 3.3658 *** 1.8234 *
lnY1 → lnX3 7.8396 *** 5.0028 ***
Bidirectional causality identified between crop production and fixed telephone subscriptions
lnX3 → lnY1 3.9543 *** 2.2417 **
lnY1 → lnX4 5.4957 *** 3.3371 ***
Bidirectional causality identified between crop production and net national income
lnX4 → lnY1 3.4100 *** 1.8549 *
lnY1 → lnX5 6.8778 *** 4.3193 ***
Bidirectional causality identified between crop production and domestic credit to the private sector
lnX5 → lnY1 2.9885 *** 1.5553
lnY1 → lnX6 13.5463 *** 9.0584 *** Unidirectional causality identified. Crop production index does Granger cause rural population while rural
lnX6 → lnY1 −0.2653 −0.7570 population does not Granger cause crop production index.
lnY2 → lnX1 4.5346 *** 2.6541 ***
Bidirectional causality identified between livestock production and individuals using internet
lnX1 → lnY2 4.4845 *** 2.6185 ***
lnY2 → lnX2 5.4399 *** 3.2975 *** Unidirectional causality identified. Livestock production Granger cause mobile phone subscriptions, however
lnX2 → lnY2 1.0341 0.1664 mobile phone subscriptions does not Granger cause livestock production
lnY2 → lnX3 1.6378 0.5954 Unidirectional causality identified. Livestock production does not Granger cause fixed telephone subscriptions,
lnX3 → lnY2 6.4053 *** 3.9835 *** however fixed telephone subscriptions does Granger cause livestock production
lnY2 → lnX4 1.5409 0.5265 Unidirectional causality identified. Livestock production does not Granger cause net national income, however net
lnX4 → lnY2 2.1615 ** 0.9676 national income does Granger cause livestock production
lnY2 → lnX5 1.3615 0.3991 Unidirectional causality identified. Livestock production does not Granger cause domestic credit to the private
lnX5 → lnY2 3.4853 *** 1.9083 * sector, however domestic credit to the private sector does Granger cause livestock production.
lnY2 → lnX6 7.0168 *** 4.4181 *** Unidirectional causality identified. Livestock production index does Granger cause rural population while rural
lnX6 → lnY2 1.0497 0.1775 population does not Granger cause livestock production index.
lnX1 → lnX2 7.0461 *** 4.4389 ***
Bidirectional causality identified between individuals using internet and mobile cellular phone subscriptions
lnX2 → lnX1 12.6614 *** 8.4295 ***
lnX1 → lnX3 5.9593 *** 3.6666 ***
Bidirectional causality identified between individuals using the internet and fixed telephone subscriptions
lnX3 → lnX1 8.7208 *** 5.6291 ***
lnX1 → lnX4 6.5856 *** 4.1116 ***
Bidirectional causality identified between individuals using the internet and net national income
lnX4 → lnX1 5.0373 *** 3.0113 ***
lnX1 → lnX5 3.8857 *** 2.1929 **
Bidirectional causality identified between individuals using the internet and domestic credit to the private sector
lnX5 → lnX1 9.6742 *** 6.3066 ***
lnX1 → lnX6 13.9557 *** 9.3493 ***
Bidirectional causality identified between individuals using the internet and rural population
lnX6 → lnX1 8.6073 *** 5.5484 ***
lnX2 → lnX3 −0.2384 −0.7380 Unidirectional causality identified. Mobile cellular phone subscriptions does not Granger cause fixed telephone
lnX3 → lnX2 5.5889 *** 3.4033 *** subscriptions, however fixed telephone subscriptions does Granger cause mobile cellular phone subscriptions
lnX2 → lnX4 1.1834 0.2725 Unidirectional causality identified. Mobile cellular phone subscriptions does not Granger cause net national income,
lnX4 → lnX2 5.6951 *** 3.4788 *** however net national income does Granger cause mobile cellular phone subscriptions
lnX2 → lnX5 3.8833 *** 2.1912 ** Bidirectional causality identified between mobile cellular phone subscriptions and domestic credit provided to the
lnX5 → lnX2 13.7153 *** 9.1785 *** private sector by banks
lnX2 → lnX6 2.9612 *** 1.5359
Bidirectional causality identified between mobile cellular phone subscriptions and rural population
lnX6 → lnX2 2.2326 ** 1.0181
lnX3 → lnX4 5.7472 *** 3.5158 ***
Bidirectional causality identified between fixed telephone subscriptions and net national income
lnX4 → lnX3 2.0032 ** 0.8551
lnX3 → lnX5 8.8024 *** 5.6871 *** Bidirectional causality identified between fixed telephone subscriptions and domestic credit provided to the private
lnX5 → lnX3 7.8753 *** 5.0282 *** sector by banks
lnX3 → lnX6 9.2821 *** 6.0279 *** Unidirectional causality identified. Fixed telephone subscriptions does Granger cause rural population while rural
lnX6 → lnX3 −0.3902 −0.8459 population does not Granger cause fixed telephone subscriptions.
lnX4 → lnX5 2.1153 *** 0.9347 Bidirectional causality identified between net national income and domestic credit provided to the private sector
lnX5 → lnX4 13.3666 *** 8.9307 *** by banks
lnX4 → lnX6 3.3663 *** 1.8238 * Unidirectional causality identified. Net national income does Granger cause rural population while rural
lnX6 → lnX4 0.7951 −0.0034 population does not Granger cause net national income.
lnX5 → lnX6 7.5513 *** 4.7979 *** Bidirectional causality identified between domestic credit provided to the private sector by banks and
lnX6 → lnX5 1.8286 * 0.7310 rural population
Note: H0 : one variable does not Granger cause the other variable for at least one panel variable. ***, **, and
* denote statistical significance at 1%, 5%, and 10% levels.

Like the internet, mobile phones also give greater access to information. It has become
the fastest and easy way of conveying information. Many studies of agricultural produc-
tion have established a relationship between mobile phone usage and agriculture [99–102].
Khan et al. [100] emphasized that the patronage of mobile phones has become the most
effective communication tool that has brought changes not only to the agriculture sector,
but to the other industries as well. This sector is one of the sectors that rely mostly on infor-
mation to be abreast with current farm practices to enhance productivity. In view of this,
mobile phones come handy in this sector; they enable farmers to disseminate information
at all levels in knowledge exchange, agricultural trade, and agricultural products [100,102].
Per the data, it can be found that there existed a bidirectional causality between
crop production and net national income, whereas the relationship type that was found
between livestock production and net national income is unidirectional. Thus, livestock
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 3918 25 of 30

production does not Granger cause net national income, but net national income does
Granger cause livestock production. Olanipekun et al. [103] studied the effect of agriculture
on the environment, conditional upon the level of income in a panel of 11 Central and West
African countries for the period 1996 to 2015, using Pooled Mean Group (PMG), Mean
Group (MG), and Augmented Mean Group (AMG) techniques; the literature establishes a
long-run relationship between net national income and agriculture production.
With regards to the rural population variable, the relationship type that was found
with both crop and livestock production was unidirectional. Thus, crop production Granger
causes rural population, while rural population does not. Moreover, livestock production
Granger causes rural population, while rural population does not Granger cause livestock
production. Muyanga and Jayne [94] studied the effect of the rising rural population density
on smallholder agriculture in Kenya. The authors established that there was a relationship
between agriculture production and rural population.

5. Conclusions, Policy Implications, and Recommendations

This article interrogates the impact of information and communication technologies on
agricultural production proxied by crop and livestock indexes in 32 African countries. Our
paper finds a positive impact between individuals using internet and their crop production
in the long run and found no significant impact on livestock production index in the short
and long run. This implies that using internet in the long run leads to increased crop
production but with no impact for livestock production. Internet-based information tools
could be developed for smallholder farmers whilst a conscious effort is made to improve
access and connectivity in rural areas. Given the no returns on investment in the livestock
sector, it may be important to invest more in internet access for livestock farmers.
Mobile cellular phone subscriptions significantly decreased crop production in the
long run. However, mobile cellular phone subscriptions significantly increased livestock
production in the long run. This means that information and communication technology-
based interventions are usually not panaceas for agricultural development. Such inter-
ventions need to be embedded in the overall rural economic development framework,
with investments in infrastructure that would direct the use of mobile phones to enhance
crop production.
Fixed phone subscriptions significantly decreased crop production in the long run
but significantly decreased livestock production index in the long run. This implies that,
as more of the populace from the African countries subscribe to the fixed telephone,
both livestock and crop production in these countries are expected to decline in the long
run. We encourage African governments to invest more in mobile phones to replace the
fixed phone lines, given that mobile phone penetration has increased substantially in the
region and tends to serve multiple uses relative to the fixed phone subscriptions. Net
national income per capita significantly increased crop production in the short run and
significantly increased livestock production in the long run. We encourage more targeted
economic activities to improve net national income per capita, particularly in the rural
areas where there are limited economic activities, even though such spaces contribute
immensely to the agricultural production of most countries in Africa. Rural population
significantly decreased crop production in the long run. Rural population significantly
increased livestock production only in the long run. In a nutshell, we expect livestock
production to increase in the long run when the rural population increases. The rural space
needs to be targeted to make it more attractive to retain individuals already in the space
and also lure more individuals into the rural areas to help curb the typical rural–urban
migration. An industrialization agenda can be pursued to encourage value addition to the
raw materials produced in the rural geographies. By doing so, decent employment and
economic opportunities will be created.
The paper found bidirectional causality between crop production and internet pa-
tronage, livestock production and individuals using internet, crop production and mobile
cellular subscription, crop production and net national income, rural population, and both
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 3918 26 of 30

crop and livestock production. A unidirectional relationship was observed between live-
stock production and net national income. The direction (bidirectional or unidirectional) of
the causality has implications for targeting by governments in Africa to promote crop and
animal production by paying more attention to the direction of the causality.
We suggest that governments within Africa pay more attention to the direction of
the causality existing between the covariates and the agricultural production. Specifically,
dedicated attention should be paid to livestock production, which remains low in the
region to enhance net national income. We recommend that governments in Africa focus
and increase funding investment in ICTs to foster increased agricultural production while
addressing structural challenges that can increase access to digital agricultural technolo-
gies. Agricultural extension and advisory services should harness the potential of digital
technologies to bridge the deficit in the agricultural extension to farmer ratio. Additional
efforts are required by extension agents to build the capacity of smallholder farmers in the
rural spaces to be adept with information and communication technologies. It might be
useful if governments in Africa incentivize the telecommunication companies that extend
coverage to rural areas with tax rebates and holidays to encourage rural inclusion in the
digital space to close the digital divide eventually.

6. Limitations and Future Research

Our paper has provided insights into the impact information and communication
technologies on agricultural production; however, there are some limitations that should
be mentioned and future studies should focus on such areas. As a result of data limita-
tions, our study focused on information and communication technologies, such as fixed
telephone subscriptions, mobile cellular subscription, and individuals using the inter-
net; it is important to note that future studies should focus on other aspects of ICTs and
digital technologies.
The findings of the study may not be generalizable to other regions outside of Africa
or to other agricultural sectors that were not included in the study. Hence, there is need for
future research to focus on other agricultural sectors and regions outside of Africa.
The study relies on panel data from 32 African countries. These countries were selected
because of data availability over the period studied. Future studies may increase the scope
(number of countries and period) to gain deeper and better insights on the topic.
While the study identifies bidirectional causality between various factors and agricul-
tural production, it is important to note that the causality may not be straightforward or
direct. There may be other factors that affect the relationship between ICTs and agricultural
production. Future studies should investigate such factors.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, R.U.O., D.A.A., R.A.-A., F.F.A., C.J.O. and J.G.N.; Formal
analysis, R.U.O. and C.J.O.; Investigation, R.U.O.; Literature Search and Review, D.A.A., R.A.-A.,
F.F.A., C.J.O. and J.G.N.; Methodology, R.U.O.; Resources, J.G.N.; Supervision, R.U.O., D.A.A., R.A.-A.
and F.F.A.; Validation, D.A.A., R.A.-A. and F.F.A.; Visualization, D.A.A., R.A.-A. and F.F.A.; Writing—
original draft, R.U.O., D.A.A., R.A.-A., F.F.A., C.J.O. and J.G.N.; Writing—review and editing, R.U.O.,
D.A.A., R.A.-A., F.F.A., C.J.O. and J.G.N. All authors have read and agreed to the published version
of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: All data used in this paper are publicly available.
Acknowledgments: This paper was supported by the KU Research Professor Program of Konkuk University.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 3918 27 of 30

References
1. Kudama, G.; Dangia, M.; Wana, H.; Tadese, B. Will digital solution transform Sub-Sahara African agriculture? Artif. Intell. Agric.
2021, 5, 292–300. [CrossRef]
2. World Bank. Individuals Using the Internet (% of Population)—Sub-Saharan Africa. 2023. Available online: https://data.
worldbank.org/indicator/IT.NET.USER.ZS?locations=ZG (accessed on 10 March 2023).
3. GSMA. The Mobile Economy Sub-Saharan Africa 2022. Available online: https://www.gsma.com/mobileeconomy/wp-content/
uploads/2022/10/The-Mobile-Economy-Sub-Saharan-Africa-2022.pdf (accessed on 10 March 2023).
4. Gillwald, A.; Mothobi, O. After Access 2018: A Demand-Side View of Mobile Internet from 10 African Countries. 2019. Available
online: https://researchictafrica.net/wp/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/2019_After-Access_Africa-Comparative-report.pdf
(accessed on 3 March 2023).
5. LIRNEasia. Understanding Digital Access and Use in the Global South: Final Technical Report. 2019. Available online:
https://idl-bnc-idrc.dspacedirect.org/bitstream/handle/10625/59183/IDL-59183.pdf?sequence=2&isAllowed=y (accessed on 3
March 2023).
6. Atta-Ankomah, R. Credit for households in Ghana: Has mobile money (momo) improved inclusive access? Sci. Afr. 2022,
16, e01230. [CrossRef]
7. Atta-Ankomah, R.; Okyere, C.Y. Welfare Effects of Financial Inclusion Services in Ghana: A Comparative Analysis of Mobile
Money and Other Financial Services. Glob. Soc. Welf. 2023, 10, 83–92. [CrossRef]
8. CEMA. Digital Farming: What Does It Really Mean? 2017; p. 9. Available online: https://www.cema-agri.org/images/
publications/position-papers/CEMA_Digital_Farming_-_Agriculture_4.0__13_02_2017_0.pdf (accessed on 10 March 2023).
9. Bronson, K. Smart farming: Including rights holders for responsible agricultural innovation. Technol. Innov. Manag. Rev. 2018, 8,
7–14. [CrossRef]
10. Wolfert, S.; Ge, L.; Verdouw, C.; Bogaardt, M.J. Big data in smart farming—A review. Agric. Syst. 2017, 153, 69–80. [CrossRef]
11. Rose, D.C.; Chilvers, J. Agriculture 4.0: Broadening responsible innovation in an era of smart farming. Front. Sustain. Food Syst.
2018, 2, 87. [CrossRef]
12. Baierle, I.C.; da Silva, F.T.; de Faria Correa, R.G.; Schaefer, J.L.; Da Costa, M.B.; Benitez, G.B.; Benitez Nara, E.O. Competitiveness
of Food Industry in the Era of Digital Transformation towards Agriculture 4.0. Sustainability 2022, 14, 11779. [CrossRef]
13. Adam, U. ‘Farming 4.0’ at the Farm Gates. 2016. Available online: https://www.euractiv.com/section/agriculture-food/opinion/
farming-4-0-digital-technology-at-the-farm-gates/ (accessed on 11 March 2019).
14. EurActiv. Farming 4.0: The Future of Agriculture? 2016. Available online: https://euractiv.eu/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/
infographic/CEMA-18102016-EN-A4-V02-1.pdf (accessed on 10 March 2023).
15. Da Silveira, F.; Lermen, F.H.; Amaral, F.G. An overview of agriculture 4.0 development: Systematic review of descriptions,
technologies, barriers, advantages, and disadvantages. Comput. Electron. Agric. 2021, 189, 106405. [CrossRef]
16. Schaefer, J.L.; Siluk, J.C.M.; de Carvalho, P.S. An MCDM-Based Approach to Evaluate the Performance Objectives for Strategic
Management and Development of Energy Cloud. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 320, 128853. [CrossRef]
17. Pivoto, D.; Barham, B.; Waquil, P.D.; Foguesatto, C.R.; Corte, V.F.D.; Zhang, D.; Talamini, E. Factors Influencing the Adoption of
Smart Farming by Brazilian Grain Farmers. Int. Food Agribus. Manag. Rev. 2019, 22, 571–588. [CrossRef]
18. Fielke, S.; Taylor, B.; Jakku, E. Digitalisation of Agricultural Knowledge and Advice Networks: A State-of-the-Art Review. Agric.
Syst. 2020, 180, 102763. [CrossRef]
19. Balducci, F.; Impedovo, D.; Pirlo, G. Machine Learning Applications on Agricultural Datasets for Smart Farm Enhancement.
Machines 2018, 6, 38. [CrossRef]
20. Baierle, I.C.; Sellitto, M.A.; Frozza, R.; Schaefer, J.L.; Habekost, A.F. An Artificial Intelligence and Knowledge-Based System to
Support the Decision-Making Process in Sales. S. Afr. J. Ind. Eng. 2019, 30, 17–25. [CrossRef]
21. Lioutas, E.D.; Charatsari, C.; La Rocca, G.; De Rosa, M. Key Questions on the Use of Big Data in Farming: An Activity Theory
Approach. NJAS—Wageningen J. Life Sci. 2019, 90–91, 100297. [CrossRef]
22. Van der Burg, S.; Bogaardt, M.J.; Wolfert, S. Ethics of Smart Farming: Current Questions and Directions for Responsible Innovation
towards the Future. NJAS—Wageningen J. Life Sci. 2019, 90–91, 100289. [CrossRef]
23. Lee, Y.Y.; Falahat, M.; Sia, B.K. Impact of Digitalization on the Speed of Internationalization. Int. Bus. Res. 2019, 12, 1–11.
[CrossRef]
24. Nawandar, N.K.; Satpute, V.R. IoT Based Low Cost and Intelligent Module for Smart Irrigation System. Comput. Electron. Agric.
2019, 162, 979–990. [CrossRef]
25. Moon, A.; Kim, J.; Zhang, J.; Son, S.W. Evaluating Fidelity of Lossy Compression on Spatiotemporal Data from an IoT Enabled
Smart Farm. Comput. Electron. Agric. 2018, 154, 304–313. [CrossRef]
26. Quiroz, I.A.; Alférez, G.H. Image Recognition of Legacy Blueberries in a Chilean Smart Farm through Deep Learning. Comput.
Electron. Agric. 2020, 168, 105044. [CrossRef]
27. Gacar, A.; Aktas, H.; Ozdogan, B. Digital Agriculture Practices in the Context of Agriculture 4.0. Pressacademia 2017, 4, 184–191.
28. Janc, K.; Czapiewski, K.; Wójcik, M. In the Starting Blocks for Smart Agriculture: The Internet as a Source of Knowledge in
Transitional Agriculture. NJAS—Wageningen. J. Life Sci. 2019, 90–91, 100309. [CrossRef]
29. Mistry, I.; Tanwar, S.; Tyagi, S.; Kumar, N. Blockchain for 5G-Enabled IoT for Industrial Automation: A Systematic Review,
Solutions, and Challenges. Mech. Syst. Signal Process 2020, 135, 106382. [CrossRef]
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 3918 28 of 30

30. Zambon, I.; Cecchini, M.; Egidi, G.; Saporito, M.G.; Colantoni, A. Revolution 4.0: Industry vs. Agriculture in a Future Development
for SMEs. Process 2019, 7, 36. [CrossRef]
31. Tsan, M.; Totapally, S.; Hailu, M.; Addom, B. The Digitalisation of African Agriculture Report 2018–2019. CTA. 2019. Available
online: https://www.cta.int/en/digitalisation-agriculture-africa (accessed on 6 October 2020).
32. Muyiramye, D.; Addom, B.K. COVID-19 and Agriculture in Africa: Implications for Digitalisation. 2020. Available
online: http://res.cloudinary.com/cta/raw/upload/v1601629259/1601629258808-COVID-19-and-Agriculture-in-Africa-
implications-for-Digitalisation.pdf (accessed on 10 March 2023).
33. Schroeder, K.; Lampietti, J.; Elabed, G. What’s Cooking: Digital Transformation of the Agrifood System; Agriculture and Food Series;
World Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 2021.
34. Trendov, N.M.; Varas, S.; Zeng, M. Digital Technologies in Agriculture and Rural Areas Briefing Paper; p. 26. Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations: Rome, Italy. 2019. Available online: http://www.fao.org/3/ca4887en/ca4887en.pdf
(accessed on 10 March 2023).
35. Goedde, L.; McCullough, R.; Ooko-Ombaka, A.; Pais, G. How Digital Tools Can Help Transform African Agri-Food Systems; McKinsey
& Company: Chicago, IL, USA, 2021; pp. 1–9.
36. Harkin, M. ICT Adoption as an Agricultural Information Dissemination Tool: A Historical Perspective. 2007. Available online:
https://economics.agri.huji.ac.il/sites/default/files/agri_economics/files/gelb-harkin-3.pdf (accessed on 10 March 2023).
37. May, J.; Karugia, J.; Ndokweni, M. Information and Communication Technologies and Agricultural Development in Sub-Saharan
Africa: Transformation and Employment Generation (Final Framework Paper Prepared for the African Economic Research
Consortium, AERC). 2007. Available online: https://www.africaportal.org/publications/information-and-communication-
technologies-and-agricultural-development-in-sub-saharan-africa-transformation-and-employment-generation/ (accessed on
10 March 2023).
38. Cariolle, J. International connectivity and the digital divide in Sub-Saharan Africa. Inf. Econ. Policy 2021, 55, 100901. [CrossRef]
39. Garba, A.M. Agri-tech opportunities at the bottom of the pyramid: How big is the opportunity and how little has been exploited?
Some selected cases in Nigeria. In Digital Entrepreneurship in Sub-Saharan Africa: Challenges, Opportunities and Prospects; Taura, N.D.,
Bolat, E., Madichie, N.O., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2019; pp. 199–220. [CrossRef]
40. United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs. United Nation e-Government Survey: Gearing e-Government to
support Transformation towards Sustainable and Resilient Societies; United Nations: Washington, DC, USA, 2018; Available on-
line: https://publicadministration.un.org/egovkb/Portals/egovkb/Documents/un/2018-Survey/E-Government%20Survey%
202018_FINAL%20for%20web.pdf (accessed on 10 March 2023).
41. Aker, J.C. Dial “A” for agriculture: A review of information and communication technologies for agricultural extension in
developing countries. Agric. Econ. 2011, 42, 631–647. [CrossRef]
42. Jensen, R. The digital provide: Information (technology), market performance, and welfare in the South Indian Fisheries Sector.
Q. J. Econ. 2007, 122, 879–924. [CrossRef]
43. Thompson, T.; Gyatso, T. Technology Adoption for Improving Agricultural Productivity in Sub-Saharan Africa. Global Agricul-
tural Productivity Report. 2020. Available online: www.globalagriculturalproductivity.org (accessed on 10 March 2023).
44. Li, X.; Guo, H.; Jin, S.; Ma, W.; Zeng, Y. Do farmers gain internet dividends from ecommerce adoption? Evidence from China.
Food Policy 2021, 101, 102024. [CrossRef]
45. Ma, W.; Nie, P.; Zhang, P.; Renwick, A. Impact of internet use on economic wellbeing of rural households: Evidence from China.
Rev. Dev. Econ. 2020, 24, 503–523. [CrossRef]
46. Zheng, H.; Ma, W.; Wang, F.; Li, G. Does internet use improve technical efficiency of banana production in China? Evidence from
a selectivity-corrected analysis. Food Policy 2021, 102, 102044. [CrossRef]
47. Zhu, L.; Li, F. Agricultural data sharing and sustainable development of ecosystem based on block Chain. J. Clean. Prod. 2021,
315, 127869. [CrossRef]
48. Halewood, N.J.; Surya, P. Mobilizing the Agricultural Value Chain in Information and Communication for Development-Maximising
Mobile; World Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 2012.
49. Aker, J.C.; Mbiti, I.M. Mobile phones and economic development in Africa. J. Econ. Perspect. 2010, 24, 207–232. [CrossRef]
50. Chavula, H.K. The role of ICTs in agricultural production in Africa. J. Dev. Agric. Econ. 2014, 6, 279–289.
51. Ker, J.C.; Fafchamps, M. Mobile phone coverage and producer markets: Evidence from West Africa. World Bank Econ. Rev. 2015,
29, 262–292.
52. Mramba, N.; Rumanyika, J.; Apiola, M.; Suhonen, J. ICT for informal workers in sub-Saharan Africa: Systematic review and
analysis. In Proceedings of the 2017 IEEE AFRICON, Cape Town, South Africa, 18–20 September 2017; pp. 486–491.
53. Oladele, O.I. Effect of information communication technology (ICT) on agricultural information access among extension officers
in North West Province South Africa. S. Afr. J. Agric. Ext. 2015, 43, 30–41. [CrossRef]
54. Sen, S.; Choudhary, V. Module 10: ICT applications for smallholder inclusion in agribusiness supply chains. In ICT in Agriculture:
Connecting Smallholders to Knowledge, Networks and Institutions E-Source Book; World Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 2011; Available online:
https://cto.int/wp-content/themes/solid/_layout/dc/k-r/ICT_in_Ag_Sourcebook_web_light.pdf (accessed on 3 March 2023).
55. Nguimkeu, P.; Okou, C. Leveraging digital technologies to boost productivity in the informal sector in Sub-Saharan Africa. Rev.
Policy Res. 2021, 38, 707–731. [CrossRef]
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 3918 29 of 30

56. Oyelami, L.O.; Sofoluwe, N.A.; Ajeigbe, O.M. ICT and agricultural sector performance: Empirical evidence from sub-Saharan
Africa. Future Bus. J. 2022, 8, 18. [CrossRef]
57. Klerkx, L.; Jakku, E.; Labarthe, P. A review of social science on digital agriculture, smart farming and agriculture 4.0: New
contributions and a future research agenda. NJAS-Wagening. J. Life Sci. 2019, 90, 100315. [CrossRef]
58. Barrett, H.; Rose, D.C. Perceptions of the fourth agricultural revolution: What’s in, what’s out, and what consequences are
anticipated? Sociol. Rural. 2022, 62, 162–189. [CrossRef]
59. Evans, O. Digital Agriculture: Mobile Phones, Internet & Agricultural Development in Africa; MPRA Paper 90359; University Library
of Munich: Munich, Germany, 2018.
60. Suroso, A.I.; Fahmi, I.; Tandra, H. The Role of Internet on Agricultural Sector Performance in Global World. Sustainability 2022,
14, 12266. [CrossRef]
61. Quandt, A.; Salerno, J.D.; Neff, J.C.; Baird, T.D.; Herrick, J.E.; McCabe, J.T.; Xu, E.; Hartter, J. Mobile phone use is associated with
higher smallholder agricultural productivity in Tanzania, East Africa. PLoS ONE 2020, 15, e0237337. [CrossRef]
62. Sennuga, S.O.; Conway, J.S.; Sennuga, M.A. Impact of information and communication technologies (ICTS) on agricultural
productivity among smallholder farmers: Evidence from Sub-Saharan African communities. Int. J. Agric. Ext. Rural. Dev. Stud.
2020, 7, 27–43.
63. Irungu, K.R.G.; Mbugua, D.; Muia, J. Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) attract youth into profitable agriculture
in Kenya. East Afr. Agric. For. J. 2015, 81, 24–33. [CrossRef]
64. Kabbiri, R.; Dora, M.; Kumar, V.; Elepu, G.; Gellynck, X. Mobile phone adoption in agri-food sector: Are farmers in Sub-Saharan
Africa connected? Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2018, 131, 253–261. [CrossRef]
65. Ogbeide, O.A.; Ele, I. Smallholder farmers and mobile phone technology in Sub-Sahara Agriculture. Mayfair J. Inf. Technol. Manag.
Agric. 2015, 1, 1–19.
66. Ali, S.; Jabeen, U.A.; Nikhitha, M. Impact of ICTs on Agricultural Productivity. Eur. J. Bus. Econ. Account. 2016, 4, 82–92.
67. Dagne, T.W.; Oguamanam, C. ICTs in Agricultural Production and Potential Deployment in Operationalising Geographical
Indications in Uganda. Ottawa Faculty of Law Working Paper No. 2018-24. 2018. Available online: http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/
ssrn.3241169 (accessed on 10 March 2023).
68. Lechman, E.; Popowska, M. Harnessing digital technologies for poverty reduction. Evidence for low-income and lower-middle
income countries. Telecommun. Policy 2022, 46, 102313. [CrossRef]
69. Welde, A.A. Digital Divide in Sub-Saharan Africa: A Panel Analysis of Internet Diffusion. In Proceedings of the Eighteenth
International Conference on the Ethiopian Economy; Ethiopian Economics Association (EEA): Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 2022.
70. Masuka, B.; Matenda, T.; Chipomho, J.; Mapope, N.; Mupeti, S.; Tatsvarei, S.; Ngezimana, W. Mobile phone use by small-scale
farmers: A potential to transform production and marketing in Zimbabwe. S. Afr. J. Agric. Ext. 2016, 44, 121–135. [CrossRef]
71. Khan, N.; Ray, R.L.; Zhang, S.; Osabuohien, E.; Ihtisham, M. Influence of mobile phone and internet technology on income of
rural farmers: Evidence from Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Province, Pakistan. Technol. Soc. 2022, 68, 101866. [CrossRef]
72. Khan, N.; Ray, R.L.; Kassem, H.S.; Ihtisham, M.; Asongu, S.A.; Ansah, S.; Zhang, S. Toward cleaner production: Can mobile phone
technology help reduce inorganic fertilizer application? Evidence using a national level dataset. Land 2021, 10, 1023. [CrossRef]
73. Kaila, H.; Tarp, F. Can the Internet improve agricultural production? Evidence from Viet Nam. Agric. Econ. 2019, 50, 675–691.
[CrossRef]
74. Chidiebere-Mark, N.M.; Onyeneke, R.U.; Uhuegbulem, I.J.; Ankrah, D.A.; Onyeneke, L.U.; Anukam, B.N.; Chijioke-Okere, M.O.
Agricultural production, renewable energy consumption, foreign direct investment, and carbon emissions: New evidence from
Africa. Atmosphere 2022, 13, 1981. [CrossRef]
75. Emenekwe, C.C.; Onyeneke, R.U.; Nwajiuba, C.U. Financial development and carbon emissions in Sub-Saharan Africa. Environ.
Sci. Pollut. Res. 2022, 29, 19624–19641. [CrossRef]
76. Kumar, P.; Sahu, C.N.; Kumar, S.; Ansari, M.A. Impact of climate change on cereal production: Evidence from lower-middle-
income countries. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2021, 28, 51597–51611. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
77. Dumitrescu, E.-I.; Hurlin, C. Testing for Granger non-causality in heterogeneous panels. Econ. Model. 2012, 29, 1450–1460.
[CrossRef]
78. Hamadeh, N.; Rompaey, C.V.; Metreau, E.; Eapen, S.G. New World Bank Country Classifications by Income Level: 2022–2023. 2022.
Available online: https://blogs.worldbank.org/opendata/new-world-bank-country-classifications-income-level-2022-2023
(accessed on 11 March 2023).
79. Cain, T.N. The Role of the Private Sector in Promoting Economic Growth and Reducing Poverty in the Indo-Pacific Region. Lowy
Institute for International Policy. 2014. Available online: https://think-asia.org/bitstream/handle/11540/6707/LOWY-private-
sector-indo-pacific.pdf?sequence=1 (accessed on 11 March 2023).
80. Emenekwe, C.C.; Onyeneke, R.U.; Nwajiuba, C.U. Assessing the combined effects of temperature, precipitation, total ecological
footprint, and carbon footprint on rice production in Nigeria: A dynamic ARDL simulations approach. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res.
2022, 29, 85005–85025. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
81. Onyeneke, R.U.; Emenekwe, C.C.; Adeolu, A.I.; Ihebuzor, U.A. Climate change and cattle production in Nigeria: Any role for
ecological and carbon footprints? Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2022, 1–14. [CrossRef]
82. Onyeneke, R.U.; Ejike, R.D.; Osuji, E.E.; Chidiebere-Mark, N.M. Does climate change affect crops differently? New evidence from
Nigeria. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2022, 1–27. [CrossRef]
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 3918 30 of 30

83. Ma, Q.; Zheng, S.; Deng, P. Impact of Internet Use on Farmers’ Organic Fertilizer Application Behavior under the Climate Change
Context: The Role of Social Network. Land 2022, 11, 1601. [CrossRef]
84. Akhigbe, B.I.; Munir, K.; Akinade, O.; Akanbi, L.; Oyedele, L.O. IoT technologies for livestock management: A review of present
status, opportunities, and future trends. Big Data Cogn. Comput. 2021, 5, 10. [CrossRef]
85. Neethirajan, S.; Kemp, B. Digital livestock farming. Sens. Bio-Sens. Res. 2021, 32, 100408. [CrossRef]
86. Tzounis, A.; Katsoulas, N.; Bartzanas, T.; Kittas, C. Internet of Things in agriculture, recent advances and future challenges.
Biosyst. Eng. 2017, 164, 31–48. [CrossRef]
87. Baird, T.D.; Hartter, J. Livelihood diversification, mobile phones and information diversity in Northern Tanzania. Land Use Policy
2017, 67, 460–471. [CrossRef]
88. Summers, K.H.; Baird, T.D.; Woodhouse, E.; Christie, M.E.; McCabe, J.T.; Terta, F.; Peter, N. Mobile phones and women’s
empowerment in Maasai communities: How men shape women’s social relations and access to phones. J. Rural. Stud. 2020, 77,
126–137. [CrossRef]
89. Adenubi, O.; Temoso, O.; Abdulaleem, I. Has mobile phone technology aided the growth of agricultural productivity in
sub-Saharan Africa? S. Afr. J. Econ. Manag. Sci. 2021, 24, 9. [CrossRef]
90. Houghton, D. Cell Phones and Cattle: The Impact of Mobile Telephony on Agricultural Productivity in Developing Nations.
2009. Available online: https://dukespace.lib.duke.edu/dspace/bitstream/handle/10161/1388/Houghton,%20Daniel.pdf?
sequence=1 (accessed on 10 March 2023).
91. Huang, Z.; Zhuang, J.; Xiao, S. Impact of Mobile Internet Application on Farmers’ Adoption and Development of Green
Technology. Sustainability 2022, 14, 16745. [CrossRef]
92. Komarek, A.M.; Msangi, S. Effect of changes in population density and crop productivity on farm households in Malawi. Agric.
Econ. 2019, 50, 615–628. [CrossRef]
93. Linh, D.H.; Cuc, N.T.T.; Tiep, N.C.; Diep, N.X.; Diep, V.B.; Busung, K.; Hung, N.N. The impact of agricultural growth on the rural
development in Vietnam. AgBioForum 2019, 21, 48–56.
94. Muyanga, M.; Jayne, T.S. Effects of rising rural population density on smallholder agriculture in Kenya. Food Policy 2014, 48,
98–113. [CrossRef]
95. Smith, A.; Goe, W.R.; Kenney, M.; Paul, C.J.M. Computer and internet use by great plains farmers. J. Agric. Resour. Econ. 2004, 29,
481–500. [CrossRef]
96. Sujatha, R.; Nithya, R.A. A Survey on Soil Quality Testing using Sensors in Smart Agriculture for Crop Production and
Maintenance using Internet of Things (IOT). Int. J. Eng. Trends Technol. 2017, 7, 55–59.
97. Ferrer, S.R.; Schroeder, D.H.; Ortmann, G.F. Internet Use and Factors Affecting Adoption of Internet Applications by Sugarcane
Farm Businesses in the Kwazulunatal Midlands. In Proceedings of the 41st Annual Conference of the Agricultural Economic
Association of South Africa (AEASA), Pretoria, South Africa, 2–3 October 2003.
98. Mishra, A.K.; Williams, R.P.; Detre, J.D. Internet access and internet purchasing patterns of farm households. Agric. Resour. Econ.
Rev. 2009, 38, 240–257. [CrossRef]
99. Issahaku, H.; Abu, B.M.; Nkegbe, P.K. Does the use of mobile phones by smallholder maize farmers affect productivity in Ghana?
J. Afr. Bus. 2018, 19, 302–322. [CrossRef]
100. Khan, N.A.; Qijie, G.; Ali, S.; Shahbaz, B.; Shah, A.A. Farmers’ use of mobile phone for accessing agricultural information in
Pakistan. Ciência Rural. St. Maria 2019, 49, e20181016. [CrossRef]
101. Khan, N.; Siddiqui, B.N.; Khan, N.; Khan, F.; Ullah, N.; Ihtisham, M.; Ullah, R.; Ismail, S.; Muhammad, S. Analyzing mobile
phone usage in agricultural modernization and rural development. Int. J. Agric. Ext. 2020, 8, 139–147. [CrossRef]
102. Ogutu, S.O.; Okello, J.J.; Otieno, D.J. Impact of information and communication technology-based market information services on
smallholder farm input use and productivity: The case of Kenya. World Dev. 2014, 64, 311–321. [CrossRef]
103. Olanipekun, I.O.; Olasehinde-Williams, G.O.; Alao, R.O. Agriculture and environmental degradation in Africa: The role of
income. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 692, 60–67. [CrossRef]

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.