Search results

This paper aims to estimate the determinants of the intensity of use of financial inclusion by households in Ghana.

Due to the reality of a household using one or more financial products or services, this study uses the generalised Poisson model applied to GLSS6 and GLSS7 data collected in 2012/2013 and 2016/2017 respectively, to estimate the determinants of the intensity of use of financial inclusion. To deepen the analysis, a multinomial probit model is also applied.

Results show that infrastructural variables such as roads, public transport and banks stimulate the intensity of financial inclusion. In addition, agricultural development characteristics such as markets and cooperatives are essential for the intensity of inclusion.

There is a need to incorporate how many services or depth of services that people use as part of the conceptualisation of financial inclusion, as this can provide more policy-relevant evidence to enhance priority setting in financial inclusion policies. Also, micro-level financial inclusion studies in agrarian economies should consider exploring agricultural development and infrastructure variables in the modelling framework. As lead to further studies, count models of financial inclusion should consider exploring cross-country analysis, the use of panel data, or other methodological approaches to provide more robust evidence.

Previous studies have not modelled financial inclusion based on a count model as a means of measuring intensity though conceptualisations highlight the fact that people use varied financial products or services. Following from this angle, to the best of the authors’ knowledge, this study provides the first attempt at analysing the underlying determinants of the number of financial products or services used by households.

Following the surge of documents laying out organizations' ethical principles for their use of artificial intelligence (AI), there is a growing demand for translating ethical principles to practice through AI governance (AIG). AIG has emerged as a rapidly growing, yet fragmented, research area. This paper synthesizes the organizational AIG literature by outlining research themes and knowledge gaps as well as putting forward future agendas.

The authors undertake a systematic literature review on AIG, addressing the current state of its conceptualization and suggesting future directions for AIG scholarship and practice. The review protocol was developed following recommended guidelines for systematic reviews and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA).

The results of the authors’ review confirmed the assumption that AIG is an emerging research topic with few explicit definitions. Moreover, the authors’ review identified four themes in the AIG literature: technology, stakeholders and context, regulation and processes. The central knowledge gaps revealed were the limited understanding of AIG implementation, lack of attention to the AIG context, uncertain effectiveness of ethical principles and regulation, and insufficient operationalization of AIG processes. To address these gaps, the authors present four future AIG agendas: technical, stakeholder and contextual, regulatory, and process. Going forward, the authors propose focused empirical research on organizational AIG processes, the establishment of an AI oversight unit and collaborative governance as a research approach.

To address the identified knowledge gaps, the authors present the following working definition of AIG: AI governance is a system of rules, practices and processes employed to ensure an organization's use of AI technologies aligns with its strategies, objectives, and values, complete with legal requirements, ethical principles and the requirements set by stakeholders. Going forward, the authors propose focused empirical research on organizational AIG processes, the establishment of an AI oversight unit and collaborative governance as a research approach.

For practitioners, the authors highlight training and awareness, stakeholder management and the crucial role of organizational culture, including senior management commitment.

For society, the authors review elucidates the multitude of stakeholders involved in AI governance activities and complexities related to balancing the needs of different stakeholders.

By delineating the AIG concept and the associated research themes, knowledge gaps and future agendas, the authors review builds a foundation for organizational AIG research, calling for broad contextual investigations and a deep understanding of AIG mechanisms. For practitioners, the authors highlight training and awareness, stakeholder management and the crucial role of organizational culture, including senior management commitment.