Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Crowdfunding as a New Phenomenon: Origins, Features and Literature Review

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Crowdfunding for SMEs

Abstract

Crowdfunding is a relatively new funding practice that is undergoing strong growth based on the predominance of such Web 2.0 technologies as social media in the past few years and the opening created by the credit squeeze that has continued since the global financial crisis that broke out in the summer of 2007. To gain an understanding of the role crowdfunding can play within the financial system, this chapter starts with its origins, highlights its main characteristics and draws attention to the associated risks and financial return crowdfunding in particular. Due to its novelty, literature on crowdfunding is quite scarce, but the chapter reviews the most important studies on success factors for crowdfunding campaigns and suggests paths for future research.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 99.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    See www.kickstarter.com.

  2. 2.

    See www.kickstarter.com.

  3. 3.

    See www.crowdcube.com.

  4. 4.

    This is also true for equity crowdfunding, which is supposed to become a complementary source of funding to all forms of angel investing, that is, business angels, venture capital and private equity funds (Hornuf and Schwienbacher 2014b).

  5. 5.

    Our data exclude China because of the ban on Facebook.

  6. 6.

    For example, see www.crowdfunder.co.uk or the 2008 election campaign of US president Barack Obama.

  7. 7.

    Examples are CDs, DVDs, books or any sort of gadgets from the artist whose project is being supported.

  8. 8.

    The UK platform Crowdcube allows the use of mini-bonds.

  9. 9.

    For details, see www.companisto.com.

  10. 10.

    The most cited example of an equity crowdfunding campaign that went wrong is Bubble and Balm, a fair-trade soap company that in 2011 raised £75,000 from 82 investors on the UK platform Crowdcube but closed in July 2013. Investors lost all their money.

  11. 11.

    We should be aware that the rise of crowdfunding in China is less due to the role of Facebook and Twitter because foreign social networks and video-sharing sites such as YouTube are banned. This does not mean that Web 2.0 plays a secondary role in the development of crowdfunding in China; it simply means that Chinese people use different social networks to promote their projects. Moreover, crowdfunding in China is slightly different from crowdfunding in the US because it is mainly used to gather the crowd and to build social and business networks rather than money (Zhang et al. 2014, p. 39).

  12. 12.

    We appreciate that the figures for the European crowdfunding market presented in Wardrop et al. (2015) differ from those in Massolution (2015), potentially due to the differences in the sample platforms. Wardrop et al. (2015) surveyed 255 EU27-based crowdfunding platforms; while data for Massolution (2015) were gathered from 91 European crowdfunding platforms, these data excluded some of the most important players in the European context (Companisto).

  13. 13.

    For more exhaustive literature reviews see Funk (2011) on P2P lending, Moritz and Block (2016) and Viotto (2015) on crowdfunding more generally.

  14. 14.

    In contrast to other research reviewed here, Kuppuswamy and Bayus (2013) aim to investigate backers’ dynamics on Kickstarter. That is, the researchers investigate the timing of the contributions by pledgers. They suggest that the contributions to projects are U-shaped; thus, they are more frequent in the first and in the last week of the fundraising period, while in the middle period they are quite stable. This U-shape is not influenced by the platform, as it allows sorting by ‘recently launched’, ‘ending-soon’ or ‘popularity’. However, it may be influenced by project updates, which are usually provided at the beginning and soon before the end of the campaign. Finally, these researchers find that the percentage already raised has a greater effect on backers’ investment decisions than the absolute amount raised. In addition, research by Cumming et al. (2015), who use data from Indiegogo, does not aim to identify the drivers of success. Rather, they investigate whether the chosen funding model (all-or-nothing or keep-it-all) depends on the company seeking funds. The analysis reveals that firms wishing to signal to pledgers that the project will be implemented only if sufficient funding is raised use the all-or-nothing approach. Conversely, the keep-it-all model is preferred by companies whose project can be realised even if the funding goal is not reached, that is, the project can be scaled. Cumming et al. also demonstrate that in this latter case, crowdfunding campaigns are less likely to be fully funded because the crowd perceives a higher risk associated with a project that might fail after the fundraising ends, due to a lack of money since the original funding goal has not been reached.

  15. 15.

    Mollick (2014) measures the quality of the project through the lack of spelling errors in the description of the pitch, the presence of a video that presents the project and the updates provided by fundraisers. The results demonstrate that the role of traditional credit channels and/or business angels, venture capitalists and private equity in assessing the quality of the projects (the so-called ‘delegated-monitoring function’) is failing. However, Mollick (2013) demonstrates that funders on online crowdfunding platforms and venture capitalists use the same variables when assessing the quality of a project, namely, the background and past success stories of the fundraising team, external endorsements and alliances, and the preparedness of the fundraisers to seize the opportunity. Moreover, it seems that crowdfunding relaxes two of the biases that characterise venture capital investments. Crowdfunded projects are not geographically constrained to the location of the funders and many of the projects that receive full funding on online platforms have a female founder.

  16. 16.

    Lin and Viswanathan’s (2014) contribution is worth mentioning despite it falling outside the aim of the present literature review. They analyse Prosper.com to test for the presence of home bias in the investment decisions of lenders. Given the nature of crowdfunding, which links pledgers and fundraisers from different countries, it would seem natural that home bias would not exist on online crowdfunding platforms. Surprisingly, the authors demonstrate that investors tend to give money to projects in the same geographical area, thus finding supporting evidence of home bias in the P2P lending market.

  17. 17.

    Contrary to Kuppuswamy and Bayus (2013), Hornuf and Schwienbacher (2015) demonstrate that funding dynamics in equity crowdfunding tend to be L-shaped, with a high frequency of investments in the beginning.

  18. 18.

    In 2009, Bubble and Balm raised £75,000 from 82 investors on Crowdcube thanks to rapidly growing sales projections and money from a small venture capital fund. In the summer of 2013, Bubble and Balm closed, owing shareholders hundreds of thousands of pounds. For details on the failure, search on www.ft.com.

References

  • Agrawal, A.K., C. Catalini, and A. Goldfarb. 2011. The geography of crowdfunding. NBER Working Paper No. 16820, February.

    Google Scholar 

  • Agrawal, A.K., C. Catalini, and A. Goldfarb. 2013. Some simple economics of crowdfunding. NBER Working Paper No. 19133, June.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ahlers, G.K.C., D. Cumming, C. Günther, and D. Schweizer. 2015. Signaling in equity crowdfunding. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice 39(4): 955–980.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aschenbeck-Florange, T., D. Blair, J. Beltran, T. Nagel, U. Piattelli, and L. Quintavalla. 2013. Regulation of crowdfunding in Germany, the UK, Spain and Italy and the impact of the European single market, June. www.eurocrowd.org.

  • Barbi, M., and M. Bigelli. 2015. Crowdfunding practices in and outside the US. SSRN Working Paper, March.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barry, C.B. 1994. New directions in research on venture capital finance. Financial Management 23(3): 3–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Belleflamme, P., and T. Lambert. 2014. Crowdfunding: Some empirical findings and microeconomic underpinnings. Forum Financier: Revue Bancaire et Financière 2014(4): 288–296.

    Google Scholar 

  • Belleflamme, P., N. Omrani, and M. Peitz. 2015. The economics of crowdfunding platforms. CORE Discussion Paper No. 2015/15, March.

    Google Scholar 

  • Belleflamme, P., T. Lambert, and A. Schwienbacher. 2013. Individual crowdfunding practices. Venture Capital: An International Journal of Entrepreneurial Finance 15(4): 313–333.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Belleflamme, P., T. Lambert, and A. Schwienbacher. 2014. Crowdfunding: Tapping the right crowd. Journal of Business Venturing 29(5): 585–609.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Best, J., and S. Neiss. 2014. Crowdfunding: A historical perspective. In Crowdfunding. A guide to raising capital on the Internet, ed. S. Dresner, 3–14. Hoboken: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bøg, M., H. Harmgart, S. Huck, and A.M. Jeffers. 2012. Fundraising on the Internet. KYKLOS 65(1): 18–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Borello, G., V. De Crescenzo, and F. Pichler. 2015. The funding gap and the role of financial return crowdfunding: Some evidence from European platforms. Journal of Internet Banking and Commerce 20: 1 article 4.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burtch, G., A. Ghose, and S. Wattal. 2013. An empirical examination of the antecedents and consequences of contribution patterns in crowd-funded markets. Information Systems Research 24(3): 499–519.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burtch, G., A. Ghose, and S. Wattal. 2014. Cultural differences and geography as determinants of online pro-social lending. MIS Quarterly 38(3): 773–794.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen, D., and Z. Lin. 2014. Rational or irrational herding in online microloan markets: Evidence from China. SSRN Working Paper, April.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen, D., L. Hao, and H. Xu. 2013. Gender discrimination towards borrowers in online P2P lending. Proceedings of the twelfth Wuhan international conference on E-Business: 21–4.

    Google Scholar 

  • Colombo, M.G., C. Franzoni, and C. Rossi-Lamastra. 2015. Internal social capital and the attraction of early contributions in crowdfunding. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice 39(1): 75–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cordova, A., J. Dolci, and G. Gianfrate. 2015. The determinants of crowdfunding success: Evidence from technology projects. Procedia—Social and Behavioural Sciences 181: 115–224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cosh, A., D. Cumming, and A. Hughes. 2009. Outside entrepreneurial capital. The Economic Journal 119(540): 1494–1533.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crosetto, P., and T. Regner. 2014. Crowdfunding: Determinants of success and funding dynamics. JENA Economic Research Papers No. 2014-035, December.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cumming, D.J., G. Leboeuf, and A. Schwienbacher. 2015. Crowdfunding models: Keep-it-all vs. all-or-nothing. SSRN Working Paper, May.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dapp, T.F. 2013. Crowdfunding. An alternative source of funding with potential, Deutsche Bank Research, Banking & Technology Snapshot, March. www.dbresearch.com.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Buysere, K., O. Gajda, R. Kleverlaan, and D. Marom. 2012. A framework for European crowdfunding. www.crowdfundingframework.eu.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dix, A., and C. Luzar. 2014. Current market dynamics. In Crowdfunding. A guide to raising capital on the Internet, ed. S. Dresner, 47–80. Hoboken: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duarte, J., S. Siegel, and L. Young. 2012. Trust and credit: The role of appearance in peer-to-peer lending. The Review of Financial Studies 25(8): 2455–2483.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Esposti, C. 2014. A statistical view of crowdfunding. In Crowdfunding. A guide to raising capital on the Internet, ed. S. Dresner, 31–45. Hoboken: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. 2014. Unleashing the potential of crowdfunding in the European Union, Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, March. http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. 2015. Crowdfunding. http://ec.europa.eu/growth/access-to-finance.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Crowdfunding Network. 2013. Review of crowdfunding regulation. Interpretations of existing regulation concerning crowdfunding in Europe, North America and Israel, October. www.eurocrowd.org.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feng, Y., X. Fan, and Y. Yoon. 2015. Lenders and borrowers’ strategies in online peer-to-peer lending market: An empirical analysis of PPDai.com. Journal of Electronic Commerce Research 16(3): 242–260.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freedman, S., and G.Z. Jin. 2014. The information value of online social networks: Lessons from Peer-to-Peer lending. NBER Working Paper No. 19820, January.

    Google Scholar 

  • Funk, B. 2011. Online peer-to-peer lending—A literature review. Journal of Internet Banking and Commerce 16(2): 1–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Galvin, W.F. 2012. Comments on the securities and exchange commission’s regulatory initiatives under the JOBS Act: Title III, crowdfunding, August. www.sec.gov/comments.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gerber, E.M., and J. Hui. 2013. Crowdfunding: Motivations and deterrents for participation. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction 20(6) article 34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Giudici, G., M. Guerini, and C. Rossi-Lamastra. 2013. Why crowdfunding projects can succeed: The role of proponents’ individual and territorial social capital. SSRN Working Paper, April.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hagedorn, A., and A. Pinkwart. 2013. Crowdinvesting as a financing instrument for startups in Germany. A critical platform analysis. HHL Working Paper No. 120, August.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hagedorn, A., and A. Pinkwart. 2016. The financing process of equity-based crowdfunding: An empirical analysis. In Crowdfunding in Europe. State of the art in theory and practice, eds. D. Brüntje, and O. Gajda, 71–85. Berlin: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Harrison, R.T. 2013. Crowdfunding and the revitalisation of the early stage risk capital market: Catalyst or chimera? Venture Capital: An International Journal of Entrepreneurial Finance 15(4): 283–287.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hemer, J., U. Schneider, F. Dornbusch, and S. Frey. 2011. Crowdfunding und andere Formen informeller Mikrofinanzierung in der Projekt- und Innovationsfinanzierung. Stuttgart: Fraunhofer Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Herzenstein, M., U.M. Dholakia, and R.L. Andrews. 2011a. Strategic herding behavior in peer-to-peer loan auctions. Journal of Interactive Marketing 25(1): 27–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herzenstein, M., S. Sonenshein, and U.M. Dholakia. 2011b. Tell me a good story and I may lend you money: The role of narratives in peer-to-peer lending decisions. Journal of Marketing Research (supplement 1) 48(S1): 138–149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hörisch, J. 2015. Crowdfunding for environmental ventures: An empirical analysis of the influence of environmental orientation on the success of crowdfunding initiatives. Journal of Cleaner Production 107: 636–645.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hornuf, L., and A. Schwienbacher. 2014a. The emergence of crowdinvesting in Europe. Munich Discussion Paper No. 2014-43, August.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hornuf, L., and A. Schwienbacher. 2014b. Crowdinvesting—Angel investing for the masses?. SSRN Working Paper, October.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hornuf, L., and A. Schwienbacher. 2015. Funding dynamics in crowdinvesting. SSRN Working Paper, September.

    Google Scholar 

  • Howe, J. 2006a. Crowdsourcing: A definition, June. www.crowdsourcing.com.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hsu, D.H. 2004. What do entrepreneurs pay for venture capital affiliation? The Journal of Finance 59(4): 1805–1844.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • iResearch Consulting Group. 2015. JD plays a leading role in China equity-based crowdfunding market, April. www.iresearchchina.com.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan, S.N., and P. Stromberg. 2001. Venture capitalists as principals: Contracting, screening, and monitoring. American Economic Review 91(2): 426–430.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, K., and S. Viswanathan. 2014. The experts in the crowd: The role of reputable investors in a crowdfunding market. SSRN Working Paper, August.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirby, E., and S. Worner. 2014. Crowd-funding: An infant industry growing fast. IOSCO Staff Working Paper SWP3/2014, February.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kleemann, F., G.G. Voß, and K. Rieder. 2008. Un(der)paid innovators: The commercial utilization of consumer work through crowdsourcing. Science, Technology & Innovation Studies 4(1): 5–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koning, R.M., and J. Model. 2014. Experimental study of crowdfunding cascades: When nothing is better than something. Paper presented at the American Sociological Association Annual Meeting, San Francisco, 16–19 August.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuppuswamy, V., and B.L. Bayus. 2013. Crowdfunding creative ideas: The dynamics of project backers in Kickstarter. UNC Kenan-Flagler Research Paper No. 2013–15, March.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lam, W. 2010. Funding gap, what funding gap? Financial bootstrapping: Supply, demand and creation of entrepreneurial finance. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research 16(4): 268–295.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lambert, T., and A. Schwienbacher. 2010. An empirical analysis of crowdfunding, March. www.crowdsourcing.org.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, E., and B. Lee. 2012. Herding behavior in online P2P lending: An empirical investigation. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications 11(5): 495–503.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lerner, J. 1995. Venture capitalists and the oversight of private firms. The Journal of Finance 50(1): 301–318.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li, E., and J.S. Martin. 2014. Crowd sourcing in capital formation: An empirical investigation. FIRN Paper No. 2517273, November.

    Google Scholar 

  • Li, S., Z. Lin, J. Qiu, and B. Luo. 2013. How friendship network works in online P2P lending market: Evidence from PPDai. In Effective, agile and trusted eServices co-creation, eds. H. Li and J. Järveläinen, Proceedings of the 15th international conference on electronic commerce ICEC 2013, 103–123.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lin, M., and S. Viswanathan. 2014. Home bias in online investments: An empirical study of an online crowdfunding market. SSRN Working Paper, January.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lin, M., N.R. Prabhala, and S. Viswanathan. 2013. Judging borrowers by the company they keep: Friendship networks and information asymmetry in online peer-to-peer lending. Management Science 59(1): 17–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ly, P., and G. Mason. 2012a. Individual preferences over development projects: Evidence from microlending on Kiva. VOLUNTAS International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations 23(4): 1036–1055.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ly, P., and G. Mason. 2012b. Competition between microfinance NGOs: Evidence from Kiva. World Development 40(3): 643–655.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mach, T.L., C.M. Carter, and C.R. Slattery. 2014. Peer-to-Peer lending to small business. Federal Reserve Board Finance and Economics Discussion Series No. 2014-10, January.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marom, D., and O. Sade. 2013. Are the life and death of an early stage venture indeed in the power of the tongue? Lessons from online crowdfunding pitches. SSRN Working Paper, December.

    Google Scholar 

  • Massolution. 2015. 2015CF Crowdfunding industry report, April.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meer, J. 2014. Effects of the price of charitable giving: Evidence from an online crowdfunding platform. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 103: 113–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mitra, T., and E. Gilbert. 2014. The language that gets people to give: Phrases that predict success on kickstarter. Proceedings of the 17th ACM conference on computer supported cooperative work & social computing: 49–61.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mollick, E. 2013. Swept away by the crowd? Crowdfunding, venture capital, and the selection of entrepreneurs. SSRN Working Paper, March.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mollick, E. 2014. The dynamics of crowdfunding: An exploratory study. Journal of Business Venturing 29(1): 1–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moritz, A., and J. Block. 2016. Crowdfunding: A literature review and research directions. In Crowdfunding in Europe. State of the art in theory and practice, eds. D. Brüntje, and O. Gajda, 25–53. Berlin: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • O’Reilly, T. 2007. What is Web 2.0: Design patterns and business models for the next generation of software. Communications & Strategies 65: 17–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pierrakis, Y., and L. Collins. 2013. Crowdfunding: A new innovative model of providing funding to projects and businesses. SSRN Working Paper, May.

    Google Scholar 

  • Poetz, M.K., and M. Schreier. 2012. The value of crowdsourcing: Can users really compete with professionals in generating new products ideas? Journal of Product Innovation Management 29(2): 245–256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pope, D.G., and J.R. Sydnor. 2011. What’s in a picture? Evidence of discrimination from Prosper.com. The Journal of Human Resources 46(1): 53–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ramsey, Y.A. 2012. What the heck is crowdfunding?, Business People, November: 54–57.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ravina, E. 2012. Love & loans: The effect of beauty and personal characteristics in credit markets. SSRN Working Paper, November.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwienbacher, A., and B. Larralde. 2012. Crowdfunding of entrepreneurial ventures. In The Oxford handbook of entrepreneurial finance, ed. D. Cumming, 369–391. Kettering: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, S., F. Windmeijer, and E. Wright. 2015. Peer effects in charitable giving: Evidence from the (running) field. The Economic Journal 125(585): 1053–1071.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tomczak, A., and A. Brem. 2013. A conceptualized investment model of crowdfunding. Venture Capital: An International Journal of Entrepreneurial Finance 15(4): 335–359.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Valanciene, L., and S. Jegeleviciute. 2013. Valuation of crowdfunding: Benefits and drawbacks. Economics and Management 18(1): 39–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vassallo, W. 2014. Crowdfunding nell’era della conoscenza. Chiunque può realizzare un progetto. Il futuro è oggi. Milan: FrancoAngeli.

    Google Scholar 

  • Viotto, J. 2015. Crowdfunding: A progress report. SSRN Working Paper, April.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vismara, S. 2015. Information cascades among investors in equity crowdfunding. SSRN Working Paper, April.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wardrop, R., B. Zhang, R. Rau, and M. Gray. 2015. Moving mainstream. The European alternative finance benchmarking report. Cambridge Centre for Alternative Finance and Ernst & Young, February. www.jbs.cam.ac.uk.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, K.E., and M. Testoni. 2014. Improving the role of equity crowdfunding in Europe’s capital markets. Bruegel Policy Contribution Issue 2014/09, August.

    Google Scholar 

  • Xu, A., X. Yang, H. Rao, W.-T. Fu, S.-W. Huang, and B.P. Bailey. 2014. Show me the money! An analysis of project updates during crowdfunding campaigns. Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems: 591–600.

    Google Scholar 

  • Younkin, P., and K. Kashkooli. 2013. A crowd or a community? Comparing three explanations for the decision to donate to a crowdfunding project, July. http://funginstitute.berkeley.edu.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yum, H., B. Lee, and M. Chae. 2012. From the wisdom of crowds to my own judgment in microfinance through online peer-to-peer lending platforms. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications 11(5): 469–483.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, J., and P. Liu. 2012. Rational herding in microloan markets. Management Science 58(5): 892–912.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, T., C. Yip, G. Wang, and Q. Zhang. 2014. China crowdfunding report. How to leverage crowdfunding to support China’s social and environmental SGBs, October. www.ied.cn/en.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zvilichovsky, D., Y. Inbar, and O. Barzilay. 2015. Playing both sides of the market: Success and reciprocity on crowdfunding platforms. SSRN Working Paper, September.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Verona, VERONA, Italy

    Flavio Pichler & Ilaria Tezza

Authors
  1. Flavio Pichler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ilaria Tezza
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. University of Verona, VERONA, Italy

    Roberto Bottiglia

  2. University of Verona, VERONA, Italy

    Flavio Pichler

Copyright information

© 2016 The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s)

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Pichler, F., Tezza, I. (2016). Crowdfunding as a New Phenomenon: Origins, Features and Literature Review. In: Bottiglia, R., Pichler, F. (eds) Crowdfunding for SMEs. Palgrave Macmillan Studies in Banking and Financial Institutions. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-56021-6_2

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-56021-6_2

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-137-56020-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-137-56021-6

  • eBook Packages: Economics and FinanceEconomics and Finance (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation