Digital platforms for development: Foundations and research agenda

| Transaction platforms and development

In the literature we reviewed, transaction platforms were depicted as useful matchmaking tools or as objects to remove important frictions in the contexts that the studies took place, for example in terms of having access to relevant information (Ogutu et al., 2014), pricing (Arinloye et al., 2015) or connections to other relevant user groups (Moitra et al., 2018). The key question centred around whether value was created for the actual targeted users (usually those belonging to particular marginalised groups), whether there was an actual need for the targeted users to use the platform in question, and whether users were able to access the platform at all (e.g., Meneses et al., 2017; Zolkafli et al., 2017). The issues linked to access were particularly raised in the literature and explored the reasons behind it. Barriers such as technical constraints, lack of skills, affordability to devices or data and digital literacy were discussed (Asamoah, 2019; Grossman et al., 2018; Nganyanyuka et al., 2017; Sambasivan et al., 2015). As a result, a large number of the studies reviewed concentrated on platforms that relied on relatively basic technologies such as SMS (Ogutu et al., 2014), voice (Moitra et al., 2018) or simple websites (Verkijika & Wet, 2018) to guarantee access among the targeted users. Some papers also highlighted the importance of offline and alternatives technologies in order to reach the set objectives (Moitra et al., 2018; Walls et al., 2015). For example, in their study on community mobilisation in India, Moitra et al. (2018) remark on the role of simple voice-based technologies to effectively broaden access to poor and marginalised communities into the platform, obviating the need for users to have a data connection or a smartphone. If not properly understood, the chosen technologies may lead to exacerbating inequalities by favouring those who are able to use the technology or have other required skills such as being able to read.
The literature also raised the issue on who benefits from transaction platforms in the context of the global South. If, as the studies showed, the marginalised groups of society lacked the means to participate or access these platforms, those that are already privileged end up capturing most benefits (Breuer et al., 2018; Schwittay & Braund, 2019). The papers highlighted the importance of developing and managing the platform in inclusive ways to account for the participation of otherwise marginalised groups. Example of these include those platforms sharing market information to farmers (e.g., Arinloye et al., 2015), or those monitoring changes in carbon stocks on smallholder farms who otherwise would face numerous governance problems when participating in centralised incentive programs to reward carbon storage (Mbile et al., 2015).
Another salient finding that emerged from the review was the fact that NGOs, development agencies or governments were the driving forces of several platforms instead of business (Mbile et al., 2015; Wenner et al., 2018). There were exceptions to this (Arinloye et al., 2015; Ogutu et al., 2014), including those that discussed platforms partly or entirely designed by private companies (Alampay & Cabotaje, 2016; Guo et al., 2018; Schwittay & Braund, 2019), some of them located in the global North (e.g., Hussain & Mostafa, 2016; Kamel, 2014). The notion of ecosystems as well as different governance models were implicitly present in many of the papers. For example, Breuer et al. (2018) discussed a case where a non-governmental organisation worked together with the public sector in setting up a citizen participation platform, noting the underlying power structures and their effects in the functioning and governance of the platform.

2.