Digital platforms for development: Foundations and research agenda

Basis for value creation and capture

When these various characteristics of transaction platforms are taken together, the basis of value creation can be summarised as facilitating the exchange of services and information between different parties of a multisided market. Specifically, this comes from two aspects. The first is through matchmaking, which is the enablement of searching and finding an appropriate opposite to transact with, and the second through the reduction of frictions in the resulting interaction and transaction (Cusumano et al., 2019). Social media platforms, as an example of transaction platforms, offer further opportunities for value co-creation (Alaimo et al., 2020) as they enable users to create content in addition to exchanging it. Transaction platforms capture value through a variety of mechanisms, including charging parties' access to the platform services through membership charges or per use access, as well as through claiming a commission as a percentage of the value of charged by the party providing service. Many transaction platforms, notably social media platforms, profit by monetising data captured from the profiles and behaviour of their users, analysing it, and sourcing it for targeted advertisement, which has led to critiques regarding the hidden and unethical uses of it (Zuboff, 2015).

Examples and implications for development

At first sight, it might seem that the term transaction platform is oriented simply towards commercial applications, economic-driven objectives. We argue that Cusumano et al.'s (2019) categorisation of platforms, and the potentialities that each of these types offer, are equally suited to grasp the broader context of achieving developmental goals. According to Cusumano et al. (2019, p. 19), ‘transaction platforms are largely intermediaries or online marketplaces that enable seemingly distant people and organisations to share information (emphasis added), to sell, buy or access a variety of services’. Its essence is therefore to enable seemingly distant people and organisations to exchange and share information. This fundamental characteristic has applications for socio-economic development as well as purely commercial settings. In other words, it is the underlying digital technology properties and the potential to scale that make transaction platforms powerful and relevant for development.
Examples of transaction platforms with implications for socio-economic development abound in the global South. Social media platforms, such as Facebook, for example, may contribute to poverty alleviation by broadening access to resources (time, expertise and support) and information (including job opportunities or benefits advice), as well as facilitating collective action and influence (such as social campaigning or warrant a voice in local affairs; Nicholson et al., 2016). The sharing economy platform Gojek in Indonesia, for instance, has facilitated rapid growth and employment by connecting the self-employed with consumers for the supply of a wide range of services. The platform bootstrapped on an initial set of delivery services enabled by Ojeks (or motorcycle taxi drivers), and grew to encompass a broad range of services provided by other entrepreneurs ranging from cleaning to wellbeing services (Kien & Raharso, 2017). Other indigenous ride-hailing platforms have also emerged in the Sub-Saharan Africa with its own specificities. One example of this is SafeBoda in Uganda, a ride-hailing app for motorcycle taxis operating in Kampala, which focuses to contribute to road safety – a recognised problem in the city. Measures introduced by SafeBoda include providing helmets and enabling cashless payments for passengers and training drivers in road safety (Rosen, 2017). In the agriculture sector, Ghana's Esoko has enabled small farmers in Africa to secure better prices for their produce by providing them information on market prices (Hildebrandt et al., 2020). Activist mapping examples like Ushahidi or Map Kibera enable local users to report events related to human rights, election monitoring and TABLE 2 Transaction platform subcategories relevant for development

Subcategory

Example

Potential positive and negative effects

Social Media Facebook Positive

• 
  Broadening access to resources (time, expertise and support)
  
• 
  Broadening access to information (job opportunities, benefits advice)
  
• 
  Facilitating collective action and influence (social campaigning or warrant a voice in local affairs)
  

Negative

• 
  Propagation of misinformation/disinformation; ideological polarisation
  
• 
  Discrimination of services based on users' preferences
  
• 
  Users' addiction, changes in behaviour
  
• 
  Citizen surveillance
  

Sharing Economy

Gojek

Positive Facilitating work opportunities, which boost income and formalize employment markets Negative Worker exploitation, lack of employment rules and protection

Knowledge Ushahidi Positive
Sharing • Enabling the co-creation of knowledge

• 
  Facilitating access to information and sharing of knowledge
  
• 
  Enhancing accountability, transparency and inclusion
  

Negative

• 
  Propagation of misinformation
  
• 
  Augmenting inequalities to those with access/willingness to report, contribute
  

Digital Identity

Aadhaar

Positive Authenticating citizen identity for access to and provision of public services Registering and recording the ownership of assets to citizens Negative Citizen surveillance

humanitarian crisis contributing to enhancing accountability, transparency or inclusion. Ushahidi or Map Kibera are typical examples of platform value being co-created with users' generated content. National systems of electronic identification, such as Aadhaar in India, can also be seen as transaction platforms which capabilities are used to access additional public services (Mir et al., 2020). The ability to authenticate the identity of citizens within multiparty networks has transformational consequences for development (Gelb & Clark, 2013).
These examples also suggest that it is possible to distinguish sub-categories of transaction platforms, each of which has characteristics that may facilitate or hinder developmental goals. Although not exhaustive, Table 2 outlines a range of transaction platform sub-categories relevant for development with examples of their potential positive and negative effects.

2.