BazEkon - Biblioteka Główna Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego w Krakowie

BazEkon home page

Meny główne

Autor
Gancarczyk Marta (Jagiellonian University in Cracow, Poland), Rodil-Marzábal Óscar (Universidade de Santiago de Compostela, Spain)
Tytuł
Fintech Framing Financial Ecologies: Conceptual and Policy-Related Implications
Źródło
Journal of Entrepreneurship, Management and Innovation (JEMI), 2022, vol. 18, nr 4, s. 7-44, tab., bibliogr. s. 35-43
Tytuł własny numeru
Financial Ecologies Framed by Fintech
Słowa kluczowe
Ekosystem biznesowy, Technologie finansowe, Usługi finansowe
Business ecosystem, FinTech, Financial services
Uwagi
Klasyfikacja JEL: F65, G21, L23, O14
streszcz., summ.
Abstrakt
CEL: Finansowe ekologie (FE) stanowią formy koordynacji nastawione na podaż usług finansowych oraz skoncentrowane na określonym terytorium. Obecnie, formy te podlegają transformacji pod wpływem technologii finansowych (Fintech). Idea FE jest istotna pod względem społecznym i ekonomicznym, gdyż zwraca uwagę na segmenty rynku słabo obsługiwane przez rynki finansowe lub z nich wykluczone. FE stanowią platformy łączące branże oraz podmioty z publicznego i prywatnego sektora. Jednocześnie, finansowe ekologie pozostają na wczesnym etapie rozwoju jako koncepcja i przedmiot badań empirycznych. Słabo zbadane pozostają wpływ Fintech na ekosystemy finansowe oraz związane z tym implikacje dla polityki gospodarczej. W odpowiedzi na teoretyczne i praktyczne znaczenie oraz wczesny etap badań nad transformacją FE pod wpływem Fintech, artykuł ma na celu określenie, w jaki sposób Fintech kształtują FE oraz wskazanie związanych z tym implikacji koncepcyjnych oraz dotyczących polityki gospodarczej. METODYKA: Podejście badawcze odwołuje się do zasad spójności koncepcji oraz rekonstrukcji koncepcji. Zastosowano metodę systematycznego przeglądu literatury 48 publikacji, wyselekcjonowanych z baz Scopus i WoS. WYNIKI: Zanalizowano główne elementy koncepcji FE oraz perspektywy teoretyczne pokrewne wobec tej idei. FE stanowią element innych ekosystemów zorientowanych na wyniki a zarazem koncentrowanych na określonym terytorium. Mogą być także traktowane jako niezależne zjawisko i przedmiot badań. Wskazano, że idea FE podlega rozwojowi pod wpływem Fintech w zakresie wszystkich elementów tworzących to zjawisko. Sformułowano zestaw założeń co do wynikających z tej transformacji konsekwencji dla rozumienia zjawiska finansowych ekosystemów i dla polityki gospodarczej. IMPLIKACJE: Wyniki systematycznego przeglądu literatury są istotne dla rozwoju podstaw teoretycznych oraz badań empirycznych nad FE. Mogą także sprzyjać integracji środowiska naukowego wokół rozwoju i akumulacji wiedzy w tej dziedzinie. Mimo standaryzacji wywołanej innowacjami technologicznymi, dostępność, użyteczność oraz efekty ekosystemów finansowych zależą od kontekstów geograficznych, które różnią się pod względem społeczno-ekonomicznym i instytucjonalnym. ORYGINALNOŚĆ I WARTOŚĆ: Artykuł pogłębia rozumienie FE jako form koordynacji usług finansowych, opartych na innowacjach technologicznych oraz zorientowanych na terytorialne projekty i społeczności lokalne. Usystematyzowano główne element koncepcji FE oraz relacje z pokrewnymi ideami sieciowej współpracy dla rozwoju społeczno-gospodarczego. Określono zestaw założeń i wskazano obszary przyszłych badań nad zjawiskiem FE. (abstrakt oryginalny)

PURPOSE: Financial ecologies (FEs) are place-based governance forms of financial services provision, currently undergoing a transformation through financial technologies (Fintech). The idea of FEs is socially and economically relevant, since they reach toward underserved or excluded market segments and intermediate for territorial development across industries and sectors of private and public entities. At the same time, the FE remains at the early stage of conceptualization and empirical corroborations, in particular regarding how Fintech affects its core elements and related policy implications. In response to the theoretical and practical relevance, and early stage of theorizing the recent Fintech developments in the FE, this article aims to identify how Fintech frame FEs and to propose the resulting conceptual and policy-related implications. METHODOLOGY: To frame the FE concept, we used the methodological lens of construct clarity principles and the concept reconstruction. The research method includes a systematic literature review of 48 publications selected from Scopus and WoS databases. FINDINGS: We have analyzed the concept of FE according to its major elements and related concepts. The FE remains at the intersection of other outcome-oriented ecosystems that focus on territories, but it can also be treated as an independent phenomenon and research object. The idea of FE has been shaped by Fintech-driven developments in all its constituent elements with conceptual and policy consequences formulated as a set of propositions. IMPLICATIONS: The findings are relevant for future theory development and empirical corroborations of the FE. They can also enhance the integration of research communities of practice to accumulate knowledge. Despite standardization brought about by technological innovations, the availability, usefulness, and effects of financial ecosystems depend on the multiscalar spatial contexts that differ in socio-economic and institutional dimensions. ORIGINALITY AND VALUE: First, the article frames the understanding of FE as financial services governance based on technological advancements and focused on territorial projects and communities. Second, the FE concept was clarified according to major properties and relationships to other adjacent ideas of spatial networking for socioeconomic development. Third, propositions and research areas were formulated for further investigations. (original abstract)
Pełny tekst
Pokaż
Bibliografia
Pokaż
  1. Aguilar, E. C. (2021). Rural entrepreneurial ecosystems: A systematic literature review for advancing conceptualisation. Entrepreneurial Business and Economics Review, 9(4), 101-114. https://doi.org/10.15678/EBER.2021.090407
  2. Alijani, S., & Karyotis, C. (2019). Coping with impact investing antagonistic objectives: A multistakeholder approach. Research in International Business and Finance, 47, 10-17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ribaf.2018.04.002
  3. Arslanian, H., & Fischer, F. (2019). The Future of Finance: The Impact of FinTech, AI, and Crypto on Financial Services. Cham: Springer.
  4. Avarmaa, M., Torkkeli, L., Laidroo, L., & Koroleva, E. (2022). The interplay of entrepreneurial ecosystem actors and conditions in FinTech ecosystems: An empirical analysis. Journal of Entrepreneurship, Management, and Innovation, 18(4), 79-113. https://doi.org/10.7341/20221843
  5. Baldwin, C. Y. (2020) "Transactions in a task network" design rules, Volume 2: How technology shapes organizations. Harvard Business School Working Paper (August 2020). Retrieved from https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm/SSRN_ID4056491_code16731.pdf?abstractid=3690565&mirid=1
  6. Baranauskas, G. (2021). Application of customisation and personalisation in digital solutions of the non-life insurance market: a case study of Lithuanian, Latvian and Estonian e-sales platforms. Engineering Management in Production and Services, 13(2), 68-82. https://doi.org/10.2478/emj-2021-0013
  7. Bartolacci, F., Cardoni, A., Łasak, P., & Sadkowski, W. (2022). An analytical framework for strategic alliance formation between a cooperative bank and a fintech start-up: An Italian case study. Journal of Entrepreneurship, Management, and Innovation, 18(4), 115-156. https://doi. org/10.7341/20221844
  8. Beaverstock, J. V., Hall, S., & Wainwright, T. (2013). Servicing the super-rich: New financial elites and the rise of the private wealth management retail ecology. Regional Studies, 47(6), 834-849. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2011.587795
  9. Bonini, S., & Capizzi, V. (2019). The role of venture capital in the emerging entrepreneurial finance ecosystem: Future threats and opportunities. Venture Capital, 21(2-3), 137-175. https://doi.org/10.1080/13691066.2019.1608697
  10. Bose, S., Dong, G., & Simpson, A. (2019). The role of finance in achieving sustainability. In The Financial Ecosystem (pp. 1-18). Cham: Springer.
  11. Breslin, D., & Gatrell, C. (2020). Theorizing through literature reviews: The miner-prospector continuum. Organizational Research Methods, 1094428120943288.
  12. Brooks, S. (2021). Configuring the digital farmer: A nudge world in the making? Economy and Society, 1-23. https://doi.org/10.1080/03085147.2021.1876984
  13. Carolan, M. (2019). Capitalizing on financing ecologies: The world making properties of peer-to-peer lending through everyday entrepreneurship. Geoforum, 102, 17-26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2019.03.014
  14. Chen, X., Hu, X., & Ben, S. (2021). How do reputation, structure design and FinTech ecosystem affect the net cash inflow of P2P lending platforms? Evidence from China. Electronic Commerce Research, 21(4), 1055-1082. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10660-020-09400-9
  15. Chen, Y., & Hassink, R. (2020). Multi-scalar knowledge bases for new regional industrial path development: Toward a typology. European Planning Studies, 28(12), 2489-2507. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2020.1724265
  16. Chen, Y., & Hassink, R. (2021). The geography of the emergence of online peer-to-peer lending platforms in China: An evolutionary economic geography perspective. International Journal of Urban Sciences, 1-21. https://doi.org/10.1080/12265934.2021.1879664
  17. Coe, N. M. (2021). Advanced Introduction to Global Production Networks. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.
  18. Coe, N. M., Lai, K. P. Y., & Wójcik, D. (2014). Integrating finance into global production networks. Regional Studies, 48(5), 761-777. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2014.886772
  19. Coe, N. M., & Yeung, H. W. (2019). Global production networks: Mapping recent conceptual developments. Journal of Economic Geography, 19(4), 775-801.
  20. Colombo, M. G., Dagnino, G. B., Lehmann, E. E., & Salmador, M. (2019). The governance of entrepreneurial ecosystems. Small Business Economics, 52(2), 419-428.
  21. Coppock, S. (2013). The everyday geographies of financialisation: Impacts, subjects and alternatives. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 6(3), 479-500. https://doi.org/10.1093/cjres/rst012
  22. Dalal, A. (2022). Meta-analysis of determinants of venture capital activity. Entrepreneurial Business and Economics Review, 10(1), 113-128.
  23. DawnBurton. (2020). Digital debt collection and ecologies of consumer overindebtedness. Economic Geography, 96(3), 244-265. https://doi.org/10.1080/00130095.2020.1762486
  24. de la Cuesta-Gonzalez, M., Paredes-Gazquez, J., Ruza, C., & Fernandez-Olit, B. (2021). The relationship between vulnerable financial consumers and banking institutions. A qualitative study in Spain. Geoforum, 119, 163-176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2021.01.006
  25. Dragos, B., & Wilkins, I. (2014). An ecological/evolutionary perspective on high-frequency trading. Journal of Sustainable Finance and Investment, 4(2), 161-175. https://doi.org/10.1080/20430795.2014.883300
  26. Du, J., Li, W., Lin, B., & Wu, D. (2021). Financial ecological environment and internal audit outsourcing: Evidence from survey in China. China Journal of Accounting Studies, 9(3), 289-310. https://doi.org/10.1080/21697213.2021.2009175
  27. Fasnacht, D. (2018). Open innovation ecosystems. In Open Innovation Ecosystems (pp. 131-172). Cham: Springer.
  28. Festa, G., Elbahri, S., Cuomo, M., Ossorio, M., & Rossi, M. (n.d.). FinTech ecosystem as influencer of young entrepreneurial intentions: Empirical findings from Tunisia. Journal of Intellectual Capital.. https://doi.org/10.1108/JIC-08-2021-0220
  29. French, S., Leyshon, A., & Wainwright, T. (2011). Financializing space, spacing financialization. Progress in Human Geography, 35(6), 798-819. https://doi.org/10.1177/0309132510396749
  30. Gancarczyk, M., Łasak, P., & Gancarczyk, J. (2022). The fintech transformation of banking: Governance dynamics and socio-economic outcomes in spatial contexts. Entrepreneurial Business and Economics Review, 10(3), 143-165. https://doi.org/10.15678/EBER.2022.100309
  31. Ge, H., Li, B., Tang, D., Xu, H., & Boamah, V. (2022). Research on digital inclusive finance promoting the integration of rural three-industry. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(6). https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19063363
  32. Ge, H., Tang, L., Zhou, X., Tang, D., & Boamah, V. (2022). Research on the effect of rural inclusive financial ecological environment on rural household income in China. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(4). https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19042486
  33. Gereffi, G., Humphrey, J., & Sturgeon, T. (2005). The governance of global value chains. Review of International Political Economy, 12(1), 78-104.
  34. Gong, H., & Hassink, R. (2019). Co-evolution in contemporary economic geography: Towards a theoretical framework. Regional Studies, 53(9), 1344-1355.
  35. Gong, H., & Hassink, R. (2020). Context sensitivity and economic-geographic (re) theorising. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 13(3), 475-490.
  36. Grafe, F.-J. (2020). Finance, water infrastructure, and the city: Comparing impacts of financialization in London and Mumbai. Regional Studies, Regional Science, 7(1), 214-231. https://doi.org/10.1080/21681376.2020.1778515
  37. Grafe, F.-J., & Mieg, H. A. (2019). Connecting financialization and urbanization: The changing financial ecology of urban infrastructure in the UK. Regional Studies, Regional Science, 6(1), 496-511. https://doi.org/10.1080/21681376.2019.1668291
  38. Green, W. (2022). Financing agrarian change: Geographies of credit and debt in the global south. Progress in Human Geography, 46(3), 849-869. https://doi.org/10.1177/03091325221083211
  39. Gün, M. (2019). The path to fintech development research on Islamic finance in Turkey. In Impact of Financial Technology (FinTech) on Islamic Finance and Financial Stability (pp. 65-96). Pennsylvania: IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-7998-0039-2.ch005
  40. He, J. (2013). Research on system innovation of Chinese rural credit guarantee mechanism. Proceedings of 2013 6th International Conference on Information Management, Innovation Management and Industrial Engineering, ICIII 2013, 1, 140-143. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICIII.2013.6702895
  41. Hiebl, M. R. (2021). Sample selection in systematic literature reviews of management research. Organizational Research Methods, 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428120986851
  42. Hill, J. (2018). Fintech and the Remaking of Financial Institutions. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Academic Press.
  43. Hodgson, G. M. (2015). On defining institutions: Rules versus equilibria. Journal of Institutional Economics, 11(3), 497-505.
  44. Jiao, Z., Shahid, M., Mirza, N., & Tan, Z. (2021). Should the fourth industrial revolution be widespread or confined geographically? A country-level analysis of fintech economies. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2020.120442
  45. Junfang, Z., & Mu, S. (2022). Construction of sci-tech financial ecosystem indicators and international comparative research. Frontiers in Political Science, 4. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpos.2022.865884
  46. Khan, S. U. (2022). How funding matters: Reinitiating of New Product Development and the moderating effect of extramural R&D. Journal of Entrepreneurship, Management, and Innovation, 18(4), 185-219. https://doi.org/10.7341/20221846
  47. Kleibert, J. M. (2020). Unbundling value chains in finance: Offshore labor and the geographies of finance. In The Routledge Handbook of Financial Geography (pp. 421-439). New York: Routledge.
  48. Kong, S. T., & Loubere, N. (2021). Digitally down to the countryside: Fintech and rural development in China. The Journal of Development Studies, 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220388.2021.1919631
  49. Konhäusner, P. ., Semmerau, S.-M. ., & Grunert, M. . (2021). Microtransactions in games - an analysis of a crowdfunding perspective. Forum Scientiae Oeconomia, 9(4), 31-58. https://doi.org/10.23762/FSO_VOL9_NO4_2
  50. Koomson, I., Bukari, C., & Villano, R. (2021). Mobile money adoption and response to idiosyncratic shocks: Empirics from five selected countries in sub-Saharan Africa. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2021.120728
  51. Kościółek, S. (2022). Heterogeneity of motivations among crowdinvestors: Evidence from the football industry. Journal of Entrepreneurship, Management, and Innovation, 18(4), 157-183. https://doi.org/10.7341/20221845
  52. Kotarba, M. (2016). New factors inducing changes in the retail banking customer relationship management (CRM) and their exploration by the FinTech industry. Foundations of Management, 8(1), 69-78. https://doi.org/10.1515/fman-2016-0006
  53. Kutera, M. (2022). Cryptocurrencies as a subject of financial fraud. Journal of Entrepreneurship, Management, and Innovation, 18(4), 45-77. https://doi. org/10.7341/20221842
  54. Lai, K. (2016). Financial advisors, financial ecologies and the variegated financialisation of everyday investors. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 41(1), 27-40. https://doi.org/10.1111/tran.12101
  55. Lai, K. P. (2018). Agency, power, and state-firm relations in global financial networks. Dialogues in Human Geography, 8(3), 285-288.
  56. Lai, K. P. (2020). FinTech: The dis/re-intermediation of finance? In The Routledge Handbook of Financial Geography (pp. 440-457). New York: Routledge.
  57. Lai, K.P.Y., & Samers, M. (2021). Towards an economic geography of FinTech. Progress in Human Geography, 45(4), 720-739. https://doi.org/10.1177/0309132520938461
  58. Langley, P., & Leyshon, A. (2017). Capitalizing on the crowd: The monetary and financial ecologies of crowdfunding. Environment and Planning A, 49(5), 1019-1039. https://doi.org/10.1177/0308518X16687556
  59. Langley, Paul. (2016). Crowdfunding in the United Kingdom: A cultural economy. Economic Geography, 92(3), 301-321. https://doi.org/10.1080/00130095.2015.1133233
  60. Langley, P., & Leyshon, A. (2021). The platform political economy of FinTech: Reintermediation, consolidation and capitalisation. New Political Economy, 26(3), 376-388. https://doi.org/10.1080/13563467.2020.1766432
  61. Łasak, P., & Gancarczyk, M. (2021). Systemizing the impact of fintechs on the efficiency and inclusive growth of banks' services: A literature review. In A. Marszk & E. Lechman (Eds.), The Digitalization of Financial Markets (pp. 123-142). London: Routledge.
  62. Łasak, P., & Gancarczyk, M. (2022). Transforming the scope of the bank through fintechs: Toward a modularized network governance. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 35(1), 186-208. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOCM-05-2021-0147
  63. Lehner, O. M. (Ed.). (2021). A Research Agenda for Social Finance. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing https://doi.org/10.4337/9781789907964
  64. Leyshon, A, Burton, D., Knights, D., Alferoff, C., & Signoretta, P. (2004). Towards an ecology of retail financial services: Understanding the persistence of door-to-door credit and insurance providers. Environment and Planning A-Economy and Space, 36(4), 625-645. https://doi.org/10.1068/a3677
  65. Leyshon, A. (2020). Financial ecosystems and ecologies. In J. Knox-Hayes & D. Wójcik (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Financial Geography(pp. 122-141). London: Routledge.
  66. Leyshon, A., Signoretta, P., Knights, D., Alferoff, C., & Burton, D. (2006). Walking with moneylenders: The ecology of the UK home-collected credit industry. Urban Studies, 43(1), 161-186.
  67. Livesey, F. (2018). Unpacking the possibilities of deglobalisation. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 11(1), 177-187.
  68. Locke, K., Feldman, M., & Golden-Biddle, K. (2022). Coding practices and iterativity: Beyond templates for analyzing qualitative data. Organizational Research Methods, 25(2), 262-284.
  69. Lund, H., Brunnhuber, K., Juhl, C., Robinson, K., Leenaars, M., Dorch, B., ... Chalmers, I. (2016). Towards evidence based research. British Medical Journal (Online), 355. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.i5440
  70. Lyons, A., Kass-Hanna, J., & Fava, A. (2022). Fintech development and savings, borrowing, and remittances: A comparative study of emerging economies. Emerging Markets Review, 51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ememar.2021.100842
  71. Martin, R., & Sunley, P. (2006). Path dependence and regional economic evolution. Journal of Economic Geography, 6(4), 395-437.
  72. Maso, G. D. (2021). The precarious Chinese financial ecology of expertise: Discontent in the mix. Journal of Cultural Economy, 14(1), 41-53. https://doi.org/10.1080/17530350.2020.1751676
  73. Mazzei, M. J. (2018). Strategic entrepreneurship: Content, process, context, and outcomes. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 14(3), 657-670. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-018-0512-9
  74. Mejia-Escobar, J. C., González-Ruiz, J. D., & Duque-Grisales, E. (2020). Sustainable financial products in the Latin America banking industry: Current status and insights. Sustainability (Switzerland), 12(14). https://doi.org/10.3390/su12145648
  75. Milberg, W. (2008). Shifting sources and uses of profits: Sustaining US financialization with global value chains. Economy and Society, 37(3), 420-451. https://doi.org/10.1080/03085140802172706
  76. Moskalenko, B. ., Lyulyov, O. ., & Pimonenko, T. . (2022). The investment attractiveness of countries: coupling between core dimensions. Forum Scientiae Oeconomia, 10(2), 153-172. https://doi.org/10.23762/FSO_VOL10_NO2_8
  77. Muralidhar, S. H., Bossen, C., Mehra, A., & O'Neill, J. (2018). Digitizing monetary ecologies: Intended and unintended consequences of introducing a financial management app in a low-resource setting. Retrieved from https://scholar.archive.org/work/jkrpjwm4tzez5fvjf6pppjpiaq/access/wayback/https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/uploads/prod/2019/02/cscw072-hulikal-muralidhar.pdf
  78. Muthukannan, P., Tan, B., Gozman, D., & Johnson, L. (2020b). The emergence of a Fintech ecosystem: A case study of the Vizag Fintech Valley in India. Information & Management, 57(8). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2020.103385
  79. Nicoletti, B., Nicoletti, W., & Weis. (2017). Future of FinTech. Cham: Springer.
  80. North, D. C. (2005). Understanding the Process of Institutional Change. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
  81. Ogunjemilusi, K. D., Johnston, K., & Boyd, B. (2021). An exploration and critique of the entrepreneurship financial ecosystem facing female entrepreneurs in Northern Ireland. Proceedings of the International Conference on Gender Research, 365-369. https://doi.org/10.34190/IGR.21.092
  82. Okello Candiya Bongomin, G., & Munene, J. C. (2021). Analyzing the relationship between mobile money adoption and usage and financial inclusion of MSMEs in developing countries: Mediating role of cultural norms in Uganda. Journal of African Business, 22(1), 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1080/15228916.2019.1695189
  83. Ostrom, E. (1986). An agenda for the study of institutions. Public Choice, 48(1), 3-25.
  84. Ostrom, E. (2010). Beyond markets and states: Polycentric governance of complex economic systems. American Economic Review, 100(3), 641-672.
  85. Owen, R., North, D., & Mac an Bhaird, C. (2019). The role of government venture capital funds: Recent lessons from the U.K. experience. Strategic Change, 28(1), 69-82. https://doi.org/10.1002/jsc.2247
  86. Piekkari, R., & Welch, C. (2018). The case study in management research: Beyond the positivist legacy of Eisenhardt and Yin. In C. Cassell, A. L. Cunliffe, & G. Grandy (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Business and Management Research Methods(pp. 345-358). London: Sage Publishing.
  87. Pollio, A., & Cirolia, L. (2022). Fintech urbanism in the startup capital of Africa. Journal of Cultural Economy, 15(4), 508-523. https://doi.org/10.1080/17530350.2022.2058058
  88. Ponte, S., & Sturgeon, T. (2014). Explaining governance in global value chains: A modular theory-building effort. Review of International Political Economy, 21(1), 195-223.
  89. Purkayastha, D., Tripathy, T., & Das, B. (2020). Understanding the ecosystem of microfinance institutions in India. Social Enterprise Journal, 16(3), 243-261. https://doi.org/10.1108/SEJ-08-2019-0063
  90. Rodil-Marzábal, O. & Menezes-Ferreira-Junior, V. (2016). The wealth effect in the eurozone. Panoeconomicus, 63(1), 87-112. https://doi.org/10.2298/PAN1601087R
  91. Sabatini, A., Cucculelli, M., & Gregori, G. L. (2022). Business model innovation and digital technology: The perspective of Italian incumbent small and medium-sized firms. Entrepreneurial Business and Economics Review, 10(3), 23-35. https://doi.org/10.15678/EBER.2022.100302
  92. Sanchez, R., & Mahoney, J. T. (2013). Modularity and economic organization: Concepts, theory, observations, and predictions. In A. Grandori (Ed.), Handbook of Economic Organization (pp. 383-399). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.
  93. Scardovi, C. (2017). Digital Transformation in Financial Services. Cham: Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-66945-8
  94. Seabrooke, L. & Wigan, D. (2017). The governance of global wealth chains. Review of International Political Economy, 24(1), 1-29. https://doi.org/10.1080/09692290.2016.1268189
  95. Senyo, P., Karanasios, S., Gozman, D., & Baba, M. (2022). FinTech ecosystem practices shaping financial inclusion: The case of mobile money in Ghana. European Journal of Information Systems, 31(1), 112-127. https://doi.org/10.1080/0960085X.2021.1978342
  96. Silverman, D. (2015). Interpreting Qualitative Data. London: Sage.
  97. Simsek, Z., Heavey, C., & Fox, B. C. (2017). (Meta-)framing strategic entrepreneurship. Strategic Organization, 15(4), 504-518. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476127017711720
  98. Soloviev, V. (2018). Fintech Ecosystem in Russia. In Eleventh International Conference on Management of large-scale system development (pp. 1-5). https://doi.org/10.1109/MLSD.2018.8551808
  99. Spigel, B. (2022). Examining the cohesiveness and nestedness entrepreneurial ecosystems: Evidence from British FinTechs. Small Business Economics, 59, 1381-1399. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-021-00589-z
  100. Stam, E. (2015). Entrepreneurial ecosystems and regional policy: A sympathetic critique. European Planning Studies, 23(9), 1759-1769.
  101. Strumeyer, G., & Swammy, S. (2017). Capital Markets: Evolution of the Financial Ecosystem (p. 613). New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119220589
  102. Suddaby, R. (2010). Construct clarity in theories of management and organization: Editor's comments. Academy of Management Review, 35(3), 346-357.
  103. Sarawut, R., & Purimprach, S. (2022). An integrated approach for supply chain risk management. Engineering Management in Production and Services, 14(1), 38-48. https://doi.org/10.2478/emj-2022-0004
  104. Tahiri Jouti, A. (2019). An integrated approach for building sustainable Islamic social finance ecosystems. ISRA International Journal of Islamic Finance, 11(2), 246-266. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJIF-10-2018-0118
  105. Tan, C. (2022). Audit as accountability: Technical authority and expertise in the governance of private financing for development. Social & Legal Studies, 31(1), 3-26. https://doi.org/10.1177/0964663921992100
  106. Tranfield, D., Denyer, D., & Smart, P. (2003). Towards a methodology for developing evidence-informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. British Journal of Management, 14(3), 207-222.
  107. Turcan, R. V., & Deák, B. (2022). Fintech - stick or carrot - in innovating and transforming a financial ecosystem: Toward a typology of comfort zoning. Foresight, 24(1), 126-139. https://doi.org/10.1108/FS-02-2021-0052
  108. Villiger, J., Schweiger, S. A., & Baldauf, A. (2021). Making the invisible visible: Guidelines for the coding process in meta-analyses. Organizational Research Methods, 25(4), https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428121104631Welch, C., Rumyantseva, M., & Hewerdine, L. J. (2016). Using case research to reconstruct concepts: A methodology and illustration. Organizational Research Methods, 19(1), 111-130. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428115596435
  109. Williamson, O. E. (2000). The new institutional economics: Taking stock, looking ahead. Journal of Economic Literature, 38(3), 595-613.
  110. Wójcik, D., & Ioannou, S. (2020). COVID-19 and finance: Market developments so far and potential impacts on the financial sector and centres. Tijdschrift Voor Economische En Sociale Geografie, 111(3), 387-400.
  111. Wójcik, D. (2021a). Financial geography II: The impacts of FinTech-Financial sector and centres, regulation and stability, inclusion and governance. Progress in Human Geography, 45(4), 878-889.
  112. Wójcik, D. (2021b). Financial Geography I: Exploring FinTech - Maps and concepts. Progress in Human Geography, 45(3), 566-576. https://doi.org/10.1177/0309132520952865
  113. Wurth, B., Stam, E., & Spigel, B. (2021). Toward an entrepreneurial ecosystem research program. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 46(3), 729-778. https://doi.org/10.1177/1042 2587 21998948.
  114. Xu, B., Yang, J., & Dasi-Rodriguez, S. (2020). Determinants of credit availability for high-tech start-ups. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 16(4), 1483-1501. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-020-00679-6
  115. Xu, K., Geng, C., & Wei, X. (2019). Research on financing ecology and financing efficiency of strategic emerging industries in China. Journal of Business Economics and Management, 20(2), 311-329. https://doi.org/10.3846/jbem.2019.9592
  116. Yin, R. K. (2018). Case Study Research and Applications. London: Sage.
  117. Zalan, T., & Toufaily, E. (2017). The promise of fintech in emerging markets: Not as disruptive. Contemporary Economics, 11(4), 415-430. https://doi.org/10.5709/ce.1897-9254.253
  118. Zhang-Zhang, Y., Rohlfer, S., & Rajasekera, J. (2020). An eco-systematic view of cross-sector fintech: The case of Alibaba and Tencent. Sustainability (Switzerland), 12(21), 1-25. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12218907
Cytowane przez
Pokaż
ISSN
2299-7075
Język
eng
URI / DOI
https://doi.org/10.7341/20221841
Udostępnij na Facebooku Udostępnij na Twitterze Udostępnij na Google+ Udostępnij na Pinterest Udostępnij na LinkedIn Wyślij znajomemu