Unravelling the digital thread: How access, protection, and adoption drive technological entrepreneurship

Ndofirepi, Takawira Munyaradzi; Steyn, Renier Article Unravelling the digital thread: How access, protection, and adoption drive technological entrepreneurship Administrative Sciences Provided in Cooperation with: MDPI – Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute, Basel Suggested Citation: Ndofirepi, Takawira Munyaradzi; Steyn, Renier (2024) : Unravelling the digital thread: How access, protection, and adoption drive technological entrepreneurship, Administrative Sciences, ISSN 2076-3387, MDPI, Basel, Vol. 14, Iss. 8, pp. 1-15, https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci14080185 This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/320999 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes. You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Citation: Ndofirepi, Takawira Munyaradzi, and Renier Steyn. 2024. Unravelling the Digital Thread: How Access, Protection, and Adoption Drive Technological Entrepreneurship. Administrative Sciences 14: 185. https://doi.org/10.3390/ admsci14080185 Received: 26 June 2024 Revised: 8 August 2024 Accepted: 15 August 2024 Published: 20 August 2024 Copyright: © 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ 4.0/). administrative sciences Article Unravelling the Digital Thread: How Access, Protection, and Adoption Drive Technological Entrepreneurship Takawira Munyaradzi Ndofirepi * and Renier Steyn Graduate School of Business Leadership, University of South Africa, Midrand 1636, South Africa; [email protected] *Correspondence: [email protected] Abstract: This study explores the relationship between digital access, protection, and adoption in supporting technological entrepreneurship within national digital ecosystems. The study utilised PROCESS regression analysis on the Global Entrepreneurship Development Institute (GEDI)’s Digital Development Economy (DPE) Index 2020 dataset to examine selected digital factors’ direct and indirect effects on entrepreneurial activity across 116 countries. While the relationship between digital access, adoption, protection, and technological entrepreneurship has been established in previous research, this study provides global evidence to reinforce this connection. However, digital protection did not significantly moderate the effect of digital access. Notably, digital adoption emerged as a significant mediator, influencing the impacts of both access and protection on entrepreneurial outcomes. This study emphasises the importance of understanding the complex relationships between digital factors in cultivating a thriving entrepreneurial ecosystem, offering valuable insights for policymakers and practitioners seeking to stimulate technological innovation and economic growth. Keywords: digital access; digital protection; digital adoption; technological entrepreneurship; digital ecosystem 1. Introduction The rise of digital technologies has drastically transformed the entrepreneurial landscape, especially in the technology sector (Paul et al. 2023). The proliferation of digital platforms, tools, and services such as social media, e-commerce platforms, cloud computing services, content management systems, and communication and collaboration tools, among others, has provided new opportunities for technology entrepreneurs around the world to innovate, gain market access, and grow (Elia et al. 2020;Fernandes et al. 2022; Satalkina and Steiner 2020). However, the success of technological entrepreneurship is dependent not only on the availability of digital technologies but also on a supportive digital ecosystem that promotes innovation and growth (Fernandes et al. 2022;Zahra et al. 2023). The term digital ecosystem describes a complex, interconnected network encompassing actors, technologies, institutions, and processes that collectively create and deliver value through digital platforms and services (Elia et al. 2020). It includes hardware, software, data, networks, organisations, regulations, and user communities (Sussan and Acs 2017). The extant literature (for instance, Bican and Brem 2020;Elia et al. 2020;Proksch et al. 2024;Sahut et al. 2021;Zhao and Weng 2024) extensively explores the link between digital factors and entrepreneurship. Some studies, such as Koomson et al. (2023) and Steininger (2019), focus on the value of digital access, emphasising how internet connectivity and tools enable entrepreneurs to launch and grow their ventures. Others delve into digital protection, highlighting the need for robust cybersecurity and intellectual property rights frameworks to foster digital entrepreneurship (Jiao et al. 2022;Zhao and Weng 2024). While a consensus exists on the significance of digital factors, there is no clarity on which of these elements exerts the greatest influence on entrepreneurship. Additionally, the optimal level Adm. Sci. 2024,14, 185. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci14080185 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/admsci Adm. Sci. 2024,14, 185 2 of 15 of government intervention in promoting and regulating digital entrepreneurship remains a subject of debate, with some advocating for minimal intervention and others calling for more active support (Jiao et al. 2022;Zhao and Weng 2024). Moreover, many previous studies tended to overlook a comprehensive examination of the relationship between digital access, protection, and adoption, and their combined effects on technological entrepreneurship. The lack of understanding regarding the complex interplay of these factors and their relative contributions creates a significant research gap. This is particularly true in developing countries where the digital landscape is rapidly evolving and entrepreneurs face unique challenges and opportunities (Soluk et al. 2021). Investigating this gap is crucial for enhancing our understanding of the digital ecosystem and its impact on technological entrepreneurship. By unravelling the connections between access, protection, and adoption, this research will contribute to a more nuanced and comprehensive theoretical framework for understanding the drivers of digital entrepreneurship. Moreover, the findings will inform policymakers, entrepreneurs, and investors in developing effective strategies to foster a thriving digital entrepreneurial ecosystem. Against the above-mentioned background, this study addresses the following research questions: (a) To what extent do digital access, protection, and adoption individually and collectively influence the level of technological entrepreneurship in a country? (b) Does digital protection moderate the relationship between digital access and technological entrepreneurship, and if so, how? (c) What is the mediating role of digital adoption in the relationships between digital access, protection, and technological entrepreneurship? The remainder of the paper is organised as follows: First, a literature review is provided. The research design and methodology are then presented, followed by the study’s results. The results are then discussed in detail, and implications for practice and theory are outlined. The paper ends with the conclusions and suggestions for future research. 2. Literature Review and Hypotheses Development 2.1. The Digital Revolution and Its Impact on Technological Entrepreneurship The profound impact of the digital revolution on the entrepreneurial landscape in many parts of the world is widely recognised (Bican and Brem 2020;Elia et al. 2020; Steininger et al. 2022). Technological entrepreneurship, also known as digital entrepreneurship, which is characterised by the creation and growth of ventures that leverage digital technologies for innovative products or services, has emerged as a key driver of economic growth and societal advancement (Petti and Zhang 2011). Some empirical studies infer positive interlinkages between the robustness of an area’s digital ecosystem and the degree of entrepreneurial activity therein (Elia et al. 2020;Zahra et al. 2023). It is observed that digital technologies lower barriers to entry, democratise access to information and resources, and enable the creation of new business models (Bican and Brem 2020;Kraus et al. 2019; Steininger 2019). These, in turn, play pivotal roles in fostering innovation, driving economic growth, and creating employment opportunities (Zhao and Weng 2024). The present literature review delves into the multifaceted digital ecosystem and its impact on technological entrepreneurship, examining how the key components of the digital ecosystem influence the emergence, growth, and success of technology-driven ventures. 2.2. Digital Access and Technological Entrepreneurship Digital access, defined as the ability of individuals and businesses to utilise digital technologies such as the internet, mobile devices, and computers (Gomes and Lopes 2022), is widely recognised as a critical factor in technological entrepreneurship. Existing research indicates a strong correlation between digital access and entrepreneurial activity, particularly in the realm of digital innovation (Gigauri et al. 2023;Koomson et al. 2023; Lythreatis et al. 2022;Nguyen et al. 2024;Reddick et al. 2020;Soluk et al. 2021). Adm. Sci. 2024,14, 185 3 of 15 Specifically, increased internet penetration and broadband availability have been linked to a rise in entrepreneurial endeavours (Chen et al. 2018;Pipitwanichakarn and Wongtada 2020). Digital access provides entrepreneurs with a wealth of information, knowledge, and resources, fostering an environment conducive to innovation. Additionally, online platforms facilitate collaboration, knowledge sharing, and access to open-source tools, thereby accelerating the innovation process (Linzalone et al. 2020). Furthermore, digital access enables entrepreneurs to reach a global audience with minimal initial investment (Watson et al. 2018). E-commerce platforms, social media, and digital marketing tools have democratised access to markets, allowing entrepreneurs to connect with customers, suppliers, and partners across geographical boundaries (Pereira et al. 2023). This expanded market reach can significantly boost sales, revenue, and overall business growth. Moreover, digital access unlocks a plethora of growth opportunities for technological entrepreneurs. Cloud computing services offer scalable and cost-effective infrastructure (Li and Yao 2021), while digital payment systems facilitate seamless transactions, enabling entrepreneurs to tap into new markets and revenue streams (Ogunmuyiwa and Amida 2022). However, barriers to digital access, particularly in developing countries and underserved communities, persist. These barriers include the high cost of internet access, lack of digital skills, and infrastructural gaps in rural and remote areas (Cumming et al. 2022; Liu et al. 2022;Morris et al. 2022;Zhao and Weng 2024). Such challenges create a digital divide, excluding a significant portion of potential entrepreneurs from the digital economy (Lythreatis et al. 2022). Despite these obstacles, the positive impact of digital access on technological entrepreneurship is evident. Therefore, the following hypothesis is proposed: H1. Digital access has a positive influence on technological entrepreneurship. 2.3. Digital Protection and Technological Entrepreneurship Digital protection, which includes cybersecurity measures and intellectual property rights (IPRs) (GEDI 2020), is critical for creating a safe and trustworthy digital ecosystem. By safeguarding digital assets and intellectual property against unauthorised access, theft, and misuse, digital protection provides a foundation upon which entrepreneurs can confidently innovate (Chandna and Tiwari 2023;Pathak et al. 2013). Empirical evidence suggests that digital protection and technological entrepreneurship are positively related. According to a European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) study (2021), stronger intellectual property rights protection in EU countries correlates with improved firm performance. Yang et al. (2014) found that robust IPR regimes promote innovation, especially in high-income economies. Hasani et al. (2023) revealed a positive relationship between cybersecurity technology adoption and organisational performance in UK SMEs. However, while strong digital protection is generally beneficial, overly stringent measures can be problematic. Excessive protection may stifle innovation and competition by restricting entrepreneurs’ ability to expand on existing ideas and technologies (Gyedu et al. 2024). Pathak et al. (2013) caution that overly aggressive IPR enforcement can stifle creativity and technological entrepreneurship. Policymakers, therefore, must strike a delicate balance between protection and innovation to foster a conducive environment for technological entrepreneurship, thereby driving economic growth and technological advancement. Given these considerations, the following hypothesis is proposed: H2. Digital protection positively influences digital entrepreneurship. Adm. Sci. 2024,14, 185 4 of 15 2.4. Digital Adoption and Technological Entrepreneurship Digital adoption describes the complex process through which individuals, businesses, and societies embrace and integrate digital technologies into their operations and strategies (Orser et al. 2019). This concept encompasses various dimensions, including technology usage, digital skill development, and organisational transformation (Lee et al. 2021). Previous research has consistently demonstrated a strong positive correlation between digital adoption and technological entrepreneurship, with some studies finding that entrepreneurs who effectively adopt digital technologies are more likely to experience enhanced entrepreneurial capabilities, increased productivity, and improved competitiveness (Berman et al. 2023;Holzmann and Gregori 2023;Paul et al. 2023;Steininger et al. 2022; Zhang et al. 2023). According to Zahra et al. (2023) businesses that adopt digital technologies are more likely to introduce innovative solutions and stay competitive in the market. Furthermore, digital tools such as e-commerce platforms, social media, and digital marketing strategies enable entrepreneurs to reach broader and more diverse markets, allowing businesses to connect with customers globally (Pereira et al. 2023). Likewise, digital technologies, through automation, cloud computing, and data analytics, also enable businesses to optimise their processes, reducing costs and improving productivity (Choi et al. 2016;Muhammad et al. 2018). Despite these benefits, several barriers can hinder digital adoption. Mkansi (2022) found that access to funding and affordable technology solutions is crucial for promoting digital adoption among SMEs, who often struggle with limited financial resources. Similarly, Kergroach (2021) reports that a lack of digital skills remains a major obstacle, which indicates the importance of upskilling and reskilling the workforce to keep pace with technological advancements. Based on the findings from previous studies, it is hypothesised that: H3. Digital adoption has a positive influence on digital entrepreneurship. 2.5. Interplay of Digital Access, Protection, and Adoption Despite ongoing research, significant gaps exist in understanding the complex interplay of digital access, protection, and adoption in fostering technological entrepreneurship. While each element is significant, there is uncertainty about their relative importance and interaction effects. Some studies prioritise access, claiming that it is essential for other factors (e.g., Pipitwanichakarn and Wongtada 2020;Li and Yao 2021). Others emphasise the importance of protection as a prerequisite for taking entrepreneurial risks (Martin et al. 2019;Deloitte 2013). More research is required to disentangle these relationships. Furthermore, the mechanisms by which these factors affect entrepreneurship are unclear. For example, while digital access broadens markets, its precise impacts on innovation and entrepreneurial behaviour remains unclear. More research is needed to identify the causal pathways. By addressing these gaps, a more nuanced understanding of the digital ecosystem and its impact on technological entrepreneurship is obtained. The subsections that follow propose specific mechanisms for how digital access, protection, and adoption interact with technological entrepreneurship. 2.5.1. Moderating Role of Digital Protection Previous research has examined the impact of digital protection on the interplay between digital access, adoption, and entrepreneurship, revealing a complex landscape. Robust digital protection mechanisms appear to strengthen the link between digital access and adoption, while also creating a more favourable environment for technological entrepreneurship (Chen and Wu 2022;Chen et al. 2023). For instance, tailored cybersecurity solutions have been identified as critical for businesses to thrive in the digital age by protecting them from the negative effects of cyber threats (Anonymous 2022). Furthermore, intellectual property rights play an important role in reinforcing the relationship between information availability and technology entrepreneurship, emphasising the significance of legal frameworks in fostering innovation (Yeganegi et al. 2021). Adm. Sci. 2024,14, 185 5 of 15 However, the impact of digital protection varies, depending on the actor and the context. Michota (2013) emphasises that security concerns are a significant barrier for female entrepreneurs, highlighting the need for tailored digital protection strategies that take into account the unique challenges that different groups face. While website security and content have been shown to improve user experience and trust, thereby increasing adoption (Natarajan et al. 2012), the interaction of digital and institutional affordances can be complex. For example, Liu et al. (2023) discovered that intellectual property rights protection systems can harm the relationship between digital innovation adoption, innovation speed, and operating efficiency. To improve our understanding of digital protection’s multifaceted role, more research is needed to investigate its moderating effect in diverse contexts using a variety of methodologies and data sources. Based on the existing literature and the potential mechanisms identified, the following hypotheses are proposed: H4. Digital protection moderates the positive relationship between digital access and digital adoption. H5. Digital protection moderates the positive relationship between digital adoption and digital entrepreneurship. 2.5.2. The Mediating Effect of Digital Adoption The relationship between digital protection and entrepreneurial outcomes is multifaceted, extending beyond a simple direct correlation (Martin et al. 2019). Whilst a secure digital environment, fostered by robust cybersecurity measures and data privacy regulations, is conducive to entrepreneurship (Chandna and Tiwari 2023), it does not automatically guarantee success. Research often reveals a positive association between strong digital protection frameworks and increased entrepreneurial activity, particularly in technological sectors (Chandna and Tiwari 2023;Pathak et al. 2013;Shepherd and Majchrzak 2022), but this correlation does not necessarily imply causation. Other factors, including the ease of doing business, access to talent, market size, economic stability, education levels, access to capital, and cultural attitudes towards risk-taking, play significant roles in shaping entrepreneurial outcomes (Gawer 2022;Manimala et al. 2019;Sheriff and Muffatto 2015;Zahra et al. 2023;Zhang et al. 2023). For instance, some European countries with stringent data protection regulations have not experienced a proportional surge in digital entrepreneurship compared to countries with more relaxed regulations but dynamic entrepreneurial cultures (Deloitte 2013). This observation underscores that while digital protection is essential, it is not the sole determinant. A balanced approach to digital protection that fosters trust and security without stifling entrepreneurial creativity and agility is therefore crucial. Some studies underscore the complementary roles of some elements of the entrepreneurial ecosystems in translating the benefits of digital protection into tangible entrepreneurial success (De Bernardi et al. 2020;Cantner et al. 2021). This study proposes that digital adoption through, inter alia, the use of digital tools and online presence, serves as a crucial mediating factor in the relationship between digital access and digital entrepreneurship. It posits that digital protection enhances digital access, which, in turn, fosters digital adoption. This adoption then enables entrepreneurs to confidently engage in online activities, reducing the risk of cyberattacks and data breaches while simultaneously expanding market reach. Data from Gomes and Lopes (2023) and Zhang et al. (2023) indicate a positive correlation between countries with high digital adoption rates and vibrant entrepreneurial ecosystems, particularly in the technology sector. Based on this, the following hypotheses are proposed: H6. Digital adoption mediates the relationship between digital access and digital entrepreneurship. H7. The mediating effect of digital adoption on the relationship between digital access and digital entrepreneurship is stronger in environments with robust digital protection measures. Adm. Sci. 2024,14, 185 6 of 15 3. Research Design and Methodology This study uses a quantitative, cross-sectional research design to examine the relationships between digital access, protection, and adoption, as well as their effects on technological entrepreneurship. Secondary data were sourced from the GEDI Institute’s Digital Platform Economy (DPE) Index 2020 dataset, which covers 116 countries and tracks the growth of the digital platform economy. This dataset has a large sample size, allowing for cross-national comparisons and an investigation of complex interactions between the variables under consideration. 3.1. Measurement and Operationalisation of Variables The study focuses on four main variables. These are described below. • Digital access: This variable, measured by the DPE Index’s digital access sub-index, captures the extent to which individuals and businesses can utilise digital technologies (e.g., internet penetration, mobile phone usage, and broadband availability). • Digital protection: This variable, operationalised through the DPE Index’s digital protection sub-index, assesses the strength of cybersecurity measures and intellectual property rights frameworks (e.g., cybersecurity readiness and intellectual property protection). • Digital adoption: This variable, measured by the DPE Index’s digital adoption subindex, reflects the degree to which digital technologies are integrated into business operations and strategies (e.g., use of digital tools and online presence). • Technological entrepreneurship: This variable, calculated using the DPE Index’s technology entrepreneurship sub-index, measures the level of entrepreneurial activity in the technology sector (e.g., number of new technology ventures and investment in technology startups). To account for potential confounding factors, the study includes one control variable, per capita gross domestic product (GDP), which is known to impact both digital development and entrepreneurial activity. 3.2. Statistical Analysis To investigate the direct and indirect effects of digital access, protection, and adoption on technological entrepreneurship, PROCESS regression analysis is used (Hayes 2018). The software Smart PLS 4 by Ringle et al. (2024) was used for this purpose. PROCESS is essentially an extension of multiple regression analysis but is particularly well-suited for analysing moderating and mediating effects because it allows a thorough examination of the interactions between multiple predictors, mediators, and moderators. The analysis entails identifying the key variable, specifying the model, and lastly, model estimation. To ensure the robustness of the results, bootstrapping is used to estimate the indirect effects. Before the PROCESS analysis, descriptive statistics and Spearman’s correlation tests are used to improve understanding of the variables’ distributions and relationships. 3.3. Ethical Considerations This study is based on publicly available secondary data from the GEDI Institute’s DPE Index 2020 dataset. As a result, no primary data were collected, and ethical approval was not required. Nonetheless, rigorous research ethics were followed by identifying the data source and ensuring accurate reporting and interpretation of the findings. 4. Results Table 1illustrates descriptive statistics for five key variables associated with the digital ecosystem and technological entrepreneurship in 116 countries: digital access, digital protection, digital adoption, per capita GDP, and technological entrepreneurship. Adm. Sci. 2024,14, 185 7 of 15 Table 1. Descriptive statistics. Digital Access Digital Protection Digital Adoption Per Capita GDP (USD) Technological Entrepreneurship Valid 116 116 116 116 116 Mean 36.23 36.23 36.23 24,018.78 34.35 Standard Deviation 28.82 27.49 22.37 21,229.62 19.39 Minimum 0.2 0.1 0.4 702 9.3 Maximum 100 100 100 116,936 92.3 Source: Authors’ own work. The mean scores for digital access, protection, and adoption are virtually identical (36.23, 36.23, and 36.22, respectively). However, each shows significant variation across countries, with standard deviations ranging from 22.37 (adoption) to 28.81 (access). The wide range of per capita GDP (USD 702 to USD 116,936) reflects substantial economic disparities between countries, which are likely to influence digital capabilities and entrepreneurial activity. Technological entrepreneurship scores vary moderately (9.3 to 92.3). These preliminary findings suggest potential interrelationships among digital access, protection, and adoption. The broad range of values for all variables highlights the diversity of the global digital landscape. The large standard deviation in per capita GDP highlights the significant economic disparities between countries, potentially affecting their digital capabilities and entrepreneurial endeavours. This descriptive analysis lays the groundwork for understanding the distribution and variability of key variables. Further statistical analyses will examine the relationships between these factors to further comprehend the complex interplay within the digital ecosystem and the effects on technological entrepreneurship. 4.1. Normality Assessment The Shapiro–Wilk test for multivariate normality was conducted to assess whether the data met the assumption of normality. The test yielded a statistically significant result (Shapiro–Wilk = 0.634, p< 0.001), indicating that the data significantly deviated from a multivariate normal distribution. The results are illustrated in Table 2. Table 2. Assumption checks: Shapiro–Wilk test for multivariate normality. Shapiro–Wilk p-Value 0.634 <0.001 Source: Authors’ own work. 4.2. Spearman’s Rank Correlation Analysis Spearman’s rank correlation analysis was performed to assess the relationships between digital technology entrepreneurship, digital access, digital protection, digital adoption, and per capita GDP. The outcome is presented in Table 3. The results revealed significant positive correlations between all variables. Specifically, technological entrepreneurship demonstrated very strong positive correlations with digital access (rho = 0.897, p< 0.001), digital adoption (rho = 0.942, p< 0.001) and digital protection (rho = 0.909, p< 0.001). This suggests that countries with higher levels of digital access, digital adoption, and protection tend to exhibit greater levels of technological entrepreneurship. Adm. Sci. 2024,14, 185 8 of 15 Table 3. Spearman’s correlation test results. Variable Technological Entrepreneurship Digital Access Digital Protection Per Capita GDP (USD) Digital Adoption 1. Technological Entrepreneurship - 2. Digital Access 0.897 *** - 3. Digital Protection 0.909 *** 0.890 *** - 4. Per Capita GDP 0.873 *** 0.881 *** 0.886 *** - 4. Digital Adoption 0.942 *** 0.885 *** 0.872 *** 0.901 *** *** p< 0.001. Source: Authors’ own work. Similarly, a very strong positive correlation was found between digital access and digital protection (rho = 0.890, p< 0.001), indicating that countries with greater digital access also tend to have stronger digital protection measures in place. Furthermore, all four variables—technological entrepreneurship, digital access, digital adoption, and digital protection—exhibited very strong positive correlations with per capita GDP (2017) (rho = 0.873, 0.881, 0.901 and 0.886, respectively, all p< 0.001). This suggests that higher levels of economic growth are associated with greater digital access, increased digital adoption, stronger digital protection, and increased technological entrepreneurship. These findings underscore the interconnected nature of these factors within the digital ecosystem. While a correlation does not imply causation, the strong positive relationships suggest that digital access, digital protection, and economic growth may play mutually reinforcing roles in fostering digital entrepreneurship. A further analysis was then conducted to determine the explanatory relationships between these variables and to identify potential mediating or moderating factors that may influence these relationships. 4.3. PROCESS Regression Analysis The computer software Smart PLS version 4 was used to run the PROCESS regression test. Figure 1illustrates the relationships between digital access, digital adoption, digital protection, and technological entrepreneurship, with per capita GDP as a control variable. Adm. Sci. 2024, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 16 Similarly, a very strong positive correlation was found between digital access and digital protection (rho = 0.890, p < 0.001), indicating that countries with greater digital access also tend to have stronger digital protection measures in place. Furthermore, all four variables—technological entrepreneurship, digital access, digital adoption, and digital protection—exhibited very strong positive correlations with per capita GDP (2017) (rho = 0.873, 0.881, 0.901 and 0.886, respectively, all p < 0.001). This suggests that higher levels of economic growth are associated with greater digital access, increased digital adoption, stronger digital protection, and increased technological entrepreneurship. These findings underscore the interconnected nature of these factors within the digital ecosystem. While a correlation does not imply causation, the strong positive relationships suggest that digital access, digital protection, and economic growth may play mutually reinforcing roles in fostering digital entrepreneurship. A further analysis was then conducted to determine the explanatory relationships between these variables and to identify potential mediating or moderating factors that may influence these relationships. Table 3. Spearman’s correlation test results. Variable Technological Entrepreneurship Digital Access Digital Protection Per Capita GDP (USD) Digital Adoption 1. Technological Entrepreneurship - 2. Digital Access 0.897 *** - 3. Digital Protection 0.909 *** 0.890 *** - 4. Per Capita GDP 0.873 *** 0.881 *** 0.886 *** - 4. Digital Adoption 0.942 *** 0.885 *** 0.872 *** 0.901 *** *** p < 0.001. Source: Authors’ own work. 4.3. PROCESS Regression Analysis The computer software Smart PLS version 4 was used to run the PROCESS regression test. Figure 1 illustrates the relationships between digital access, digital adoption, digital protection, and technological entrepreneurship, with per capita GDP as a control variable. Figure 1. Path diagram of the relationships between digital access, digital adoption, digital protection, and technological entrepreneurship. Source: Authors’ own work. The details of the direct and indirect effects of the predictors on the independent variable are captured in Tables 4–6. The results of the analysis, summarised in Table 4, demonFigure 1. Path diagram of the relationships between digital access, digital adoption, digital protection, and technological entrepreneurship. Source: Authors’ own work. The details of the direct and indirect effects of the predictors on the independent variable are captured in Tables 4–6. The results of the analysis, summarised in Table 4, demonstrate significant direct effects of both digital access and protection on technological entrepreneurship across the 116 countries analysed. Specifically, digital access positively Adm. Sci. 2024,14, 185 15 of 15 Steininger, Dennis M., M. Kathryn Brohman, and Jörn H. Block. 2022. Digital entrepreneurship: What is new if anything? Business and Information Systems Engineering 641: 1–4. [CrossRef] Sussan, Fiona, and Zoltan J. Acs. 2017. The digital entrepreneurial ecosystem. Small Business Economics 49: 55–73. [CrossRef] Watson, George F. IV, Scott Weaven, Helen Perkins, Deepak Sardana, and Robert W. Palmatier. 2018. International market entry strategies: Relational, digital, and hybrid approaches. Journal of International Marketing 26: 30–60. [CrossRef] Yang, Chih-Hai, Yi-Ju Huang, and Hsuan-Yu Lin. 2014. Do stronger intellectual property rights induce more innovations? A cross-country analysis. Hitotsubashi Journal of Economics 55: 167–88. Yeganegi, Sepideh, AndréO. Laplume, and Parshotam Dass. 2021. The role of information availability: A longitudinal analysis of technology entrepreneurship. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 170: 120910. [CrossRef] Zahra, Shaker A., Wan Liu, and Steven Si. 2023. How digital technology promotes entrepreneurship in ecosystems. Technovation 119: 102457. [CrossRef] Zhang, Jianhong, Désirée van Gorp, and Henk Kievit. 2023. Digital technology and national entrepreneurship: An ecosystem perspective. Journal of Technology Transfer 48: 1077–105. [CrossRef] Zhao, Xiaoyang, and Zongyuan Weng. 2024. Digital dividend or divide: The digital economy and urban entrepreneurial activity. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences 93: 101857. [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.