Advertisement

Digital Technologies and Pro-poor Finance

  • Silvia Masiero
  • M. N. Ravishankar
Chapter
Part of the Advances in Theory and Practice of Emerging Markets book series (ATPEM)

Abstract

Social enterprises need to be ambidextrous, i.e. simultaneously pursue social and financial goals. In this paper we focus on how digital social entrepreneurs at the base of the pyramid implement ambidextrous strategies. We draw on a case study of Rang De, India’s first platform for the delivery of credit to the poor, whose ecosystem involves multiple intermediaries and thousands of borrowers all over India. The paper identifies key actor-technology mechanisms leading to the achievement of social and financial goals, finding that the platform is instrumental to building trust amongst the social investor community and, at the same time, delivering loans at the base of the pyramid. The study contributes to a deeper understanding of pro-poor finance in the Indian context and also adds to the literature on digitally driven financial inclusion.

Keywords

India Digital entrepreneurship Financial inclusion 

References

  1. Banerjee, A., Duflo, E., Glennerster, R., & Kinnan, C. (2015). The miracle of microfinance? Evidence from a randomized evaluation. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 7(1), 22–53.Google Scholar
  2. Foster, C., & Heeks, R. (2013). Innovation and scaling of ICT for the bottom-of-the-pyramid. Journal of Information Technology, 28(4), 296–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Gibson, C. B., & Birkinshaw, J. (2004). The antecedents, consequences, and mediating role of organizational ambidexterity. Academy of Management Journal, 47(2), 209–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Gregor, S. (2006). The nature of theory in information systems. MIS Quarterly, 30(3), 611–642.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Gupta, A. K., Smith, K. G., & Shalley, C. E. (2006). The interplay between exploration and exploitation. Academy of Management Journal, 49(4), 693–706.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Hahn, T., Pinkse, J., Preuss, L., & Figge, F. (2016). Ambidexterity for corporate social performance. Organization Studies, 37(2), 213–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Hart, S. L., & Christensen, C. M. (2002). The great leap: Driving innovation from the base of the pyramid. MIT Sloan Management Review, 44(1), 51.Google Scholar
  8. Heeks, R., & Arun, S. (2010). Social outsourcing as a development tool: The impact of outsourcing IT services to women's social enterprises in Kerala. Journal of International Development, 22(4), 441–454.Google Scholar
  9. Jha, S. K., Pinsonneault, A., & Dubé, L. (2016). The evolution of an ICT platform-enabled ecosystem for poverty alleviation: The case of eKutir. MIS Quarterly, 40(2), 431–445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Kuriyan, R., Nafus, D., & Mainwaring, S. (2012). Consumption, technology, and development: The “poor” as “consumer”. Information Technologies & International Development, 8(1), 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kuriyan, R., Toyama, K., & Ray, I. (2006). Integrating social development and financial sustainability: The challenges of rural computer kiosks in Kerala. Proceedings of the International Conference on Information and Communication Technologies and Development, Berkeley (CA), 25-26 May 2006.Google Scholar
  12. Madon, S. (2005). Governance lessons from the experience of telecentres in Kerala. European Journal of Information Systems, 14(4), 401–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Mas, I., & Radcliffe, D. (2010). Mobile payments go viral: M-PESA in Kenya. Working Paper for the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, November 2010.Google Scholar
  14. Masiero, S. (2011). Financial vs social sustainability of telecentres: Mutual exclusion or mutual reinforcement? The Electronic Journal of Information Systems in Developing Countries, 45(1), 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Mayasandra, R., Pan, S. L., & Myers, M. D. (2006). Viewing information technology outsourcing organisations through a postcolonial lens. In E. Trauth, D. Howcroft, T. Butler, B. Fitzgerald, & J. De Gross (Eds.), Social inclusion, societal and organisational implications for information systems. Berlin, Germany: Springer.Google Scholar
  16. Mingers, J. (2004). Realizing information systems: Critical realism as an underpinning philosophy for information systems. Information and Organization, 14(2), 87–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Pache, A. C., & Santos, F. (2010). When worlds collide: The internal dynamics of organizational responses to conflicting institutional demands. Academy of Management Review, 35(3), 455–476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Prahalad, C. K. (2012). Bottom of the pyramid as a source of breakthrough innovations. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 29(1), 6–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Prahalad, C. K., & Hammond, A. (2002). Serving the world’s poor, profitably. Harvard Business Review, 80(9), 48–59.Google Scholar
  20. Raisch, S., & Birkinshaw, J. (2008). Organizational ambidexterity: Antecedents, outcomes, and moderators. Journal of Management, 34(3), 375–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ravishankar, M. N. (2013). Public ICT innovations: A strategic ambiguity perspective. Journal of Information Technology, 28(4), 316–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Sandeep, M. S., & Ravishankar, M. N. (2015). Social innovations in outsourcing: An empirical investigation of impact sourcing companies in India. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 24(4), 270–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research techniques. New York, NY: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  24. Walsham, G. (1995). Interpretive case studies in IS research: Nature and method. European Journal of Information Systems, 4(2), 74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Business and Economics, Loughborough UniversityLoughboroughUK

Personalised recommendations