Finance, Markets and Valuation
DOI:
10.46503/POYR6349
Corresponding author
Jesús Manuel de
Sancha-Navarro
Received: 21 Nov 2018
Revised: 13 Dic 2018
Accepted: 17 Dic 2018
Finance, Markets and
Valuation
ISSN 2530-3163.
Finance, Markets and Valuation Vol. 4, Num. 2 (Julio-Diciembre 2018), 63–72
Relationship between crowdfunding and microfinance:
A theoretical approach
Crowdfunding y microfinanzas: Relación y enfoque
teórico
Jesús Manuel de Sancha-Navarro
ID
1
, Carlos Sanchís-Pedregosa
ID
2
, María Dolores Oliver-Alfonso
ID
3
1
Faculty of Economics and Business, Universidad de Sevilla. Sevilla, Spain. Email: jsancha@us.es
2
Faculty of Economics and Business, Universidad de Sevilla. Sevilla, Spain. Email: csanchis@us.es
3
Faculty of Economics and Business, Universidad de Sevilla. Sevilla, Spain. Email: moliver@us.es
JEL: G20; G21; G32
Abstract
Crowdfunding is becoming an important tool to get funds for many projects thanks to web platforms that
links funders and backers. Backers can get back from funders some return like equity capital, rewards,
interest rates or nothing (donation). Recently, these Crowdfunding tools have been use by Microfinancial
institutions to help people living in underdeveloped countries to improve their quality of life. Specially,
these institutions have been using Donation Crowdfunding and Crowdlending tools. Moreover, we can
establish that when Crowdfunding tools are dedicated to social integration, dierences with Microfinance
institution way to operate are not clear. In this paper, we try to set factors appearing in the academic
literature relating both concepts. Results will help to find points of collaboration between them to get
their owns objectives.
Keywords: Crowdfunding; Microfinance; Fintech; Crowdlending; Entrepreneurship.
Resumen
El crowdfunding se está convirtiendo en una herramienta importante para obtener fondos para muchos
proyectos, gracias a las plataformas web que vinculan a los emprendedores y patrocinadores. Los promo-
tores pueden obtener dichos fondos de los financiadores a través de capital en acciones, recompensas,
tasas de interés o simplemente donación. Recientemente, estas herramientas de financiación colectiva
han sido utilizadas por instituciones microfinancieras para ayudar a las personas que viven en países
subdesarrollados a mejorar su calidad de vida. Especialmente, estas instituciones han estado utilizando
las herramientas de crowdfunding de donación y crowdlending. Además, podemos establecer que cuando
las herramientas de financiamiento colectivo están dedicadas a la integración social, las diferencias con
la forma de operar de la institución de microfinanzas no están claras. En este documento, tratamos de
establecer los factores que aparecen en la literatura académica que relacionan ambos conceptos. Los
resultados ayudarán a encontrar puntos de colaboración entre ellos para lograr sus propios objetivos.
Cómo citar este artículo: Sancha-Navarro, J.M., Sanchís-Pedregosa, C., Oliver-Alfonso, M.D. (2018)
Relationship between crowdfunding and microfinance: A theoretical approach. Finance, Markets
and Valuation 4(2), pp. 63–72.
63
Finance, Markets and Valuation Vol. 4, Num. 2 (Julio-Diciembre 2018), 63–72
Keywords: Crowdfunding; Microfinanzas; Fintech; Crowdlending; Emprendimiento.
1 Introduction
Crowdfunding is becoming a growing tool to finance business project (Zhang, Wardrop, Rau,
y Gray, 2015). But, from the appearing of the term “Crowdfunding” (CF) to name a group of new
ways to finance project (Crowdlending, equity, donation and reward CF) lots of platforms has
been created with a broad number of goals (Beaulieu, Sarker, y Sarker, 2015). Some of these
platforms have been focused on support projects with social objectives, asking for money to
sustain charities institutions throw a donation or helping to lend money for low-income persons
(Marakkath y Attuel-Mendes, 2015). When CF is used for this, we could be able to find points in
common with microfinance sector (MF) that help people in under development areas to get
access to financial capitals (Yum, Lee, y Chae, 2012). However, the relationships between MF
and CF can be blocked or facilitated by some elements like the needs and the development of
Microfinance Institutions (MFIs) in each time or his ability to adapt to the technological and
information supply requirements of CF platforms (Burand, 2009).
Whatseems to be clear is that the mainpoint in common between MF and CFisthe possibility
of using the Internet community to obtain money for social purposes (Allison, Davis, Short, y
Webb, 2014; Dorfleitner y Oswald, 2016; Gleasure y Feller, 2016b). In fact, there are already many
platforms of CF that focus on microfinance to get funding in dierent ways, such as Kiva, Zidisha,
Babyloan, DhanaX, Microplace, GlobalFunder India, United Prosperity, myElen, MyC4, among
others. Another point is that MF has become a tool of democratization of entrepreneurship
funding, while CF potentially opens entrepreneurship funding to masses (Marakkath y Attuel-
Mendes, 2015). Additionally, thanks to CF a group of people with social investment mind set
could accomplish entrepreneurial finance better than what IMFs could individually do (Attuel-
Mendes, 2016).
Because of all the above, we propose to point out factors in commons and dierences
between both concepts founded in the prior literature. To do this we will conduct a comprehen-
sive literature review searching for academic papers relating CF and MF. Results would be very
helpful to establish how CF and MF can collaborate using the best of both fields. In the following
section a deeper theoretical analysis is show in order to provide a frame work for our research.
Later, methodology and results of our literature review are outlined. Finally, conclusions are
presented together with a series of implications, limitations and future research.
2 Theoretical framework
Newly, CF is emerging as financing innovation consisting in a series of activities that aim
to involve a large group of people in the financing of a particular project. These projects are
promoted by single entrepreneurs or small groups of people who want to finance their new
businesses, or social proposal, throw relatively small contributions of a relatively large number
of individuals using web tools, avoiding the traditional financial intermediaries (Belleflamme,
Lambert, y Schwienbacher, 2014; Moritz y Block, 2016). Other authors describe CF as a close
collaboration between investors, intermediaries and entrepreneurs (Ahlers, Cumming, Günther,
y Schweizer, 2015; Valančien
˙
e y Jegeleviči
¯
ut
˙
e, 2013). Nevertheless, CF seems to be a high
potential trend that will play an important role at business and personal project financing
(Assenova y cols., 2016).
However, under CF classification we can find several types of technological alternative
Jesús Manuel de Sancha-Navarro y cols. 64
Finance, Markets and Valuation Vol. 4, Num. 2 (Julio-Diciembre 2018), 63–72
financing tools. Firstly, Equity Crowdfunding (ECF) allows small investors to become co-owner
of a startup company to get monetary returns (Belleflamme y cols., 2014). However, in Reward
Crowdfunding (RCF) entrepreneurs give to the funders back a give in exchange of their con-
tribution, which use to be a product related to the project that they are promoting. In other
way, Donation Crowdfunding (DCF) is more related with charity because the only return for the
backer is the satisfaction of collaborate with a fare cause (Burtch, Ghose, y Wattal, 2014). Finally,
Crowdlending (CL) is de most popular kind of alternative finance on behalf of a recent study
(Zhang y cols., 2015). This is gaining importance because it allows borrowers to get money with
lower interest rates and for lenders it is a way to get a better profitability than in bank deposits
with a low default rate. In all these ways of CF, funders publish detailed descriptions of their
projects on websites (CF platforms) and backers choose which projects to support based on
those descriptions (Riedl, 2013). But all of the CF types have a common point: platforms use
intensively technology to keep in contact funders and backers.
On the other hand, Microfinance (MF) has been identified as a financial tool for the poor
and low-income clients with have no access to traditional financial institutions (Yum y cols.,
2012). These have been very popular in underdeveloped areas of Latin America and South Asia
(Armendáriz y Morduch, 2010). Although the success of MF, which has reached more than 150
million borrowers worldwide, it also has its failures. In this line Vega, Álvarez, y Sancho Meneses
(2013) pointed out that microcredit sometimes presents some uncertainty about its impact
achieving poverty reduction, inclusion and job creation goals.
More in depth, it is relevant the role played by the Microfinance Institutions (MFIs). The goal
of MFIs is to provide micro loans and other microfinance services (microinsurance, microsaving,
etc.) to socially and financially excluded people, for the creation of micro enterprises. Countries
with higher MFIs’ gross loan portfolio per capita tends to have lower levels of poverty indices.
This suggests that microfinance significantly reduces poverty at macro level (Imai, Gaiha, Thapa,
y Annim, 2012). In recent years, funding of MFIs has radically changed. Traditionally, these
institutions were financed mainly by donations and public and/or private subsidies (Hudon y
Traca, 2011). A lot of IMFs that claim to make profits still rely on subsidies in order to cover their
seemingly high transaction costs (Armendáriz y Morduch, 2010). However, the recent financial
crisis triggered the decreasing of donations and subsidies to MFIs and a significant negative
impact on real credit growth of MFIs (Wagner y Winkler, 2013).
More in depth, it is relevant the role played by the Microfinance Institutions (MFIs). The goal
of MFIs is to provide micro loans and other microfinance services (microinsurance, microsaving,
etc.) to socially and financially excluded people, for the creation of micro enterprises. Countries
with higher MFIs’ gross loan portfolio per capita tends to have lower levels of poverty indices.
This suggests that microfinance significantly reduces poverty at macro level (Imai y cols., 2012).
In recent years, funding of MFIs has radically changed. Traditionally, these institutions were
financed mainly by donations and public and/or private subsidies (Hudon y Traca, 2011). A lot
of IMFs that claim to make profits still rely on subsidies in order to cover their seemingly high
transaction costs (Armendáriz y Morduch, 2010). However, the recent financial crisis triggered
the decreasing of donations and subsidies to MFIs and a significant negative impact on real
credit growth of MFIs (Wagner y Winkler, 2013).
The growth in the crowdfunding sector (online fundraising platforms for donors, lending
and investment) presents an opportunity and challenge for MFIs intent on tapping the potential
online donors, lenders or investors (Burand, 2009). The number of online platforms focusing on
microfinance is growing. It can be especially relevantwhen this concept extends to philanthropy.
Jesús Manuel de Sancha-Navarro y cols. 65
Finance, Markets and Valuation Vol. 4, Num. 2 (Julio-Diciembre 2018), 63–72
Online philanthropy is changing the nature of how and where people give. A study of Bonbright,
Kiryttopoulou, y Iversen (2008) introduced the term “online philanthropy” and it is defined as
“an internet phenomenon through which individual citizens and institutions can engage with
citizen-le organizations and micro-entrepreneurs all over the world to invest their money, time
or expertise to improve human and environment well-being”. The possibility of crowdfunding
as a source of financing for the microfinance sector is significant. For microfinance, according
words of Burand (2009), “crowfunding can contribute to growing of the next generation of
socially responsible lenders and investors by showing the small investor/lender how his money
can used to do good in the world while returning the principal amount of that financing and
perhaps even generating a financial return on this principal”.
Finally, according to Attuel-Mendes (2016) both mechanisms (MF and CF) are an important
leverage for entrepreneurs, for whom fundraising has always been a problem. MF has become
a tool to finance small entrepreneurship projects, while CF potentially opens up such financing
to the masses. The same authors pointed out that combination of CF and MF could lead to the
acceleration of poverty eradication. It would be interesting, therefore, to explore into these
two approaches and to look for the relation and dierences between both formulas trying
to create a theoretical framework of reference. Because of that, we consider this topic need
more research and to fill this gap we proposed to conduct a literature review seeking for papers
relating MF and CF in order to find what is in common between both concepts. Results would
be very useful to determine how CF tools could improve MF performance.
3 Literature review
To get our research goals we conduct a literature review using a systematic and rigorous
process (Jesson, Matheson, y Lacey, 2011). Data has been obtained from the Web of Science
database to ensure the quality of the papers found. The first step of our research consisted on
successive iterations and the consequent refining of the key words. At the en of the process
we selected the words "microfinance” and “crowdfunding" appearing in the title or abstract
of the academic paper. Although the broad nature of the terms used, only 14 papers were
identified. Finally, 10 of them were selected aer abstract reading. However, we include two
more papers that we consider relevant for this research work although they do not appear in
our systematic literature review. At the end of the process, we have hardly found more than a
dozen of documents matching with our research criteria (Allison y cols., 2014; Attuel-Mendes,
2016; Barasinska y Schäfer, 2014; Beaulieu y cols., 2015; Bruton, Khavul, y Chavez, 2011; Burtch y
cols., 2014; Dorfleitner y Oswald, 2016; Frydrych y Kinder, 2015; Gleasure y Feller, 2016a, 2016b;
Ibrahim y Verliyantina, 2012; Marakkath y Attuel-Mendes, 2015). However, it is not surprising the
limited number of papers found because CF is a relatively new phenomenon and its literature
related is nascent yet (Belleflamme, Omrani, y Peitz, 2015).
To complete our analysis, on one hand, the papers selected were analyzed in detail seeking
for data helping to know the journal areas, type of paper and the impact of the research works
found (impact factor and number of citations). On the other hand, we look for information in
the papers found like data source of the research, destination of funds obtained and which
type of CF was analyzed relating to MF for the authors. These will help to determine points in
common and dierences between both concepts.
Table 1 shows the list of articles analyzed, classified according to the journal area, the last
known impact factor (JCR and SJR) in its main area and the number of citations provided by
Google Scholar. In this classification we have used values “0” and “1” to indicate the existence or
Jesús Manuel de Sancha-Navarro y cols. 66
Finance, Markets and Valuation Vol. 4, Num. 2 (Julio-Diciembre 2018), 63–72
Ibrahim y Verliyantina (2012)
Burtch y cols. (2014)
Barasinska y Schäfer (2014)
Allison y cols. (2014)
Bruton, Khavul, Siegel, y Wright (2014)
Beaulieu y cols. (2015)
Marakkath y Attuel-Mendes (2015)
Frydrych y Kinder (2015)
Gleasure y Feller (2016b)
Dorfleitner y Oswald (2016)
Gleasure y Feller (2016a)
Attuel-Mendes (2016)
Total
Journal area
Management 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 6
Economics 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 3
Information System 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
Finance 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
Marketing 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1
No data 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
Impact Factor 2015
ISI
Q1 JCR 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 4
Q2 JCR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1
Q3 JCR 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
Q4 JCR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
No impact 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 5
Scimago
Q1 SJR 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 5
Q2 SJR 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 4
Q3 SJR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Q4 SJR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
No impact 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 3
Citations (Google Scholar) 25 111 27 83 97 23 3 1 2 0 3 1
Table 1. Bibliometric analysis
not of said characteristic. As can be seem, the majority of the works belong to the Management
area(6) follow by Economics (3) and Information System (2) area. Only 1 paper has been found in
financial journal so thissubjectseems to have some implications in others areas witch makeit an
interesting topic. However, if we put together al the papers related to business (Management,
Economics, Finance and Marketing), there is no doubt that this is a topic impacting to the
economic environment in several aspects. In addition, we analyzed the impact factor of the
journals where the authors published their research. To do this we complemented data from
Web of Science (ISI Journal Rank) with Scopus (Scimago Journal Rank, SJR). Most of these
papers are published in high impact journals (9 of them in SJR Q1 or Q2), and there are 6 of
them with more than 20 citations in July 2017. So we can establish that our set of data come
from papers with robust conclusions on behalf of the journals quality that they are published.
More over, the relevance of the topic point to that it needs more research.
Considering criteria for the Systematic literature Review analysis, in Table 2 can be seen the
type of research, data source, type of relationship between MF y CF and destination of funds.
Jesús Manuel de Sancha-Navarro y cols. 67
Finance, Markets and Valuation Vol. 4, Num. 2 (Julio-Diciembre 2018), 63–72
Firstly, according to the type of research done we can point out that there is a balance between
theoretical and empirical works. So, these seem to be a nascent topic that need of a conceptual
framework yet. In the near future, it would important to have a wider set of empirical research
works.
Secondly, we consider relevant to seek the data source from financial web platform if it
is used in the papers. Related to this we appreciate that there is a platform (Kiva) that is the
most used, appearing in 4 of the articles (Beaulieu y cols., 2015; Dorfleitner y Oswald, 2016;
Gleasure y Feller, 2016b; Ibrahim y Verliyantina, 2012). Additionally, Smaava (Barasinska y
Schäfer, 2014), Razoo (Gleasure y Feller, 2016a) and Zidisha (Ibrahim y Verliyantina, 2012) have
been part of studies in our set of papers. Among these, Zidisha defined itself like a “person
to person microlending” and it works in a similar way to Kiva. Both of them are supported by
non-profit organizations trying to connect low-income persons to people whom are keen to
support them lending money. However, Razoo use technology to make easier donations throw
its platform. Finally, Smava is a German CL platform not so clearly related to the development
support like the other analyzed.
Thirdly, all papers studied related MF and CF but, as there are 4 types of CF, we have analyzed
which of them appears in our set of papers. In this line, we can show that MF seems to have a
high relationship with CF through the CL model. This is the only one that appears in 6 of the
articles (Allison y cols., 2014; Barasinska y Schäfer, 2014; Bruton y cols., 2014; Burtch y cols.,
2014; Dorfleitner y Oswald, 2016; Ibrahim y Verliyantina, 2012). In addition, there are four papers
that mention the other three types of CF but together with CL (Attuel-Mendes, 2016; Frydrych y
Kinder, 2015; Gleasure y Feller, 2016a, 2016b).
Finally, in the case of use a data source from platform, the destination of the funds obtained
has been study. In that way, we can point out that the vast majority of them are designed for
social purposes (Attuel-Mendes, 2016; Bruton y cols., 2014; Burtch y cols., 2014; Dorfleitner y
Oswald, 2016; Gleasure y Feller, 2016a; Ibrahim y Verliyantina, 2012; Marakkath y Attuel-Mendes,
2015). This drives us to highlight that the social aspect of the interaction is and important point
in common between MF and CF.
4 Discussion and conclusions
First at all, we have to point out that although we found little research papers exploring the
existing connection between MF and CF, the documents found have a high relevance. Proof
of this is the number of citations, impact factors and the diversity in the areas of the journal
where the works are published. So, we consider this data set like a good support to establish
some final considerations and future research.
Starting with similarities between MF and CF, we have to point out that several papers have
been previously described both to under a CL classification (Allison y cols., 2014; Barasinska y
Schäfer, 2014; Bruton y cols., 2014; Burtch y cols., 2014; Dorfleitner y Oswald, 2016; Ibrahim y
Verliyantina, 2012). However, DCF is mentioned (Attuel-Mendes, 2016; Frydrych y Kinder, 2015;
Gleasure y Feller, 2016a, 2016b) in the same proportion as RCF and ECF but we consider that is
a good way to MFIs to get founds minimizing the impact of financial crisis (Wagner y Winkler,
2013).
Moreover, MF and CF are not so similar in CL platforms that are designed to work in devel-
oped countries with a profitability goal (Prosper, PPdai, Lending Club). But there is a trend to
use this tools helping people who live in underdeveloped countries to improve their quality
of life (Fr ydrych y Kinder, 2015) using a mix model between MF and CF. This model can been
Jesús Manuel de Sancha-Navarro y cols. 68
Finance, Markets and Valuation Vol. 4, Num. 2 (Julio-Diciembre 2018), 63–72
Ibrahim y Verliyantina (2012)
Burtch y cols. (2014)
Barasinska y Schäfer (2014)
Allison y cols. (2014)
Bruton y cols. (2014)
Beaulieu y cols. (2015)
Marakkath y Attuel-Mendes (2015)
Frydrych y Kinder (2015)
Gleasure y Feller (2016b)
Dorfleitner y Oswald (2016)
Gleasure y Feller (2016a)
Attuel-Mendes (2016)
Total
Type of paper
Empirical 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 6
Theoretical 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 6
Data sources
Kiva 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 4
Smava 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
Razoo 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
Zidisha 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
Others 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 2
No data 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 4
Type of CF-MF
relation
Crowdlending 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 10
CF Reward 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 4
CF Donation 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 4
CF Equity 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 4
Others 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 2
Fund des-
tination
Social 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 7
Others 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2
No data 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 3
Table 2. Systematic Literature Review
Jesús Manuel de Sancha-Navarro y cols. 69
Finance, Markets and Valuation Vol. 4, Num. 2 (Julio-Diciembre 2018), 63–72
clearly observed in the most studied platform appearing in our set of papers: Kiva (Beaulieu y
cols., 2015; Dorfleitner y Oswald, 2016; Gleasure y Feller, 2016b; Ibrahim y Verliyantina, 2012).
Throw this model, Kiva replace MFIs connecting persons directly.
In this line, we consider that there is a trend replacing MF by CL as an alternative to the
above (Bruton y cols., 2014; Burtch y cols., 2014). Moreover, we have to claim that the CF system
is more complex because it involves dierent forms of capital provision, not only by lending
(Ibrahim y Verliyantina, 2012). Finally, the clearest point in common is the destination of founds
that seem to be social in all cases (Attuel-Mendes, 2016; Bruton y cols., 2014; Burtch y cols., 2014;
Dorfleitner y Oswald, 2016; Gleasure y Feller, 2016a; Ibrahim y Verliyantina, 2012; Marakkath y
Attuel-Mendes, 2015). So, it seems to be clear is that the main point in common between MF
and CF is the opportunity of using technology to obtain funds for social purposes (Allison y
cols., 2014; Dorfleitner y Oswald, 2016; Gleasure y Feller, 2016b).
However, we consider that this relation is not clear enough. Firstly, because MF depends
on an institutional context and CL on the individuals (Bruton y cols., 2014). In addition, we
established that even though the success history of MF managing to reduce poverty in a high
number of families around the world, there are a series of challenges to face and CF can be
a tool to solve these problems pointed out. Secondly, in the use of technologies we find
important dierences because of the diicult access to communications by the low incomes
people (Beaulieu y cols., 2015). More in deep, we can point out that there is a certain ambiguity
between CF and MF and it claims that CF markets has been explored at length in existing
research on MF (Gleasure y Feller, 2016a).
Beaulieuy cols. (2015) state that the relationship is of belonging to each other (MF is one of six
CF business models) and in other cases, it recognizes that the phenomenon which is described
as CF has strong links and origins to the broader field of traditional MF (Frydrych y Kinder,
2015). But most of papers claim that CF and MF even though non-synonymous aim similar goals
and talk about a mix of them like crowdmicrofinance (Marakkath y Attuel-Mendes, 2015) or
“microfunding” (MF through CF model) assuming the form of CF in MF (Attuel-Mendes, 2016)
and maximizing the use of internet technology. Particularly the use of interactive and social
media sites that have the ability as a catalyst and mobilizes the mass (Ibrahim y Verliyantina,
2012). Nevertheless, MFIs must consider taking advantage of the high increasing of the “online
philanthropy”(Bonbright y cols., 2008) toshowto the crowd how theirmoney is usedtoimprove
life’s around the world (Burand, 2009).
Finally, all the analyzed articles concur in assessing as positive the application of technology
and Internet in the field of MF, taking as a model the mechanism of operation in CF platforms
(Attuel-Mendes, 2016). Moreover, it has been proven that the volume of funds generated by
platforms like Kiva has improved the de velopment and use of traditional MF institutions (MFIs)
(Ibrahim y Verliyantina, 2012; Marakkath y Attuel-Mendes, 2015). Like a practical implications
we consider that MF institutions would use CF tools in order to improve their performance
looking for a hybrid model maintaining the best from both fields. Bearing in mind the little
research found on this topic, our future research will be testing empirically benefits of such
cooperation and its possible ways of development. Finally, this research is no free of limitations.
Mainly, they derives of the novelty of the topic that give a result an anecdotic number of high
quality research papers. Because of that, we propo se in the future research to monitories CF
environment to set empirically dierences between performance of CF and MF platforms.
Jesús Manuel de Sancha-Navarro y cols. 70
Finance, Markets and Valuation Vol. 4, Num. 2 (Julio-Diciembre 2018), 63–72
References
Ahlers, G. K., Cumming, D., Günther, C., y Schweizer, D. (2015). Signaling in eq-
uity crowdfunding. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 39(4), 955–980. doi:
https://doi.org/10.1111/etap.12157
Allison, T. H., Davis, B. C., Short, J. C., y Webb, J. W. (2014). Crowdfunding in a prosocial
microlending environment: Examining the role of intrinsic versus extrinsic cues. En-
trepreneurship Theory and Practice, 39(1), 53–73. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/etap.12108
Armendáriz, B., y Morduch, J. (2010). The economics of microfinance. MIT press.
Assenova, V., Best, J., Cagney, M., Elleno, D., Karas, K., Moon, J., ... Sorenson, O. (2016). The
present and future of crowdfunding. California Management Review, 58(2), 125–135. doi:
https://doi.org/10.1525/cmr.2016.58.2.125
Attuel-Mendes, L. (2016). Crowdfunding and crowdmicrofinance, an evolution of models for en-
trepreneurship of the poor. OALib, 03(12), 1–7. doi: https://doi.org/10.4236/oalib.1103251
Barasinska, N., y Schäfer, D. (2014). Is crowdfunding dierent? evidence on the relation between
gender and funding success from a german peer-to-peer lending platform. German
Economic Review, 15(4), 436–452. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/geer.12052
Beaulieu, T., Sarker, S., y Sarker, S. (2015). A conceptual framework for understanding crowd-
funding. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 37, 1.
Belleflamme, P., Lambert, T., y Schwienbacher, A. (2014). Crowdfunding: Tap-
ping the right crowd. Journal of Business Venturing, 29(5), 585–609. doi:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2013.07.003
Belleflamme, P., Omrani, N., y Peitz, M. (2015). The economics of crowd-
funding platforms. Information Economics and Policy, 33, 11–28. doi:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infoecopol.2015.08.003
Bonbright, D., Kiryttopoulou, N., y Iversen, L. (2008). Online philanthropy markets: from ‘feel
good’giving to eective social investing. The Aspen Institute.
Bruton, G., Khavul, S., y Chavez, H. (2011). Microlending in emerging economies: Building a
new line of inquiry from the ground up. Journal of International Business Studies, 42(5),
718–739. doi: https://doi.org/10.1057/jibs.2010.58
Bruton, G., Khavul, S., Siegel, D., y Wright, M. (2014). New financial alternatives in seeding en-
trepreneurship: Microfinance, crowdfunding, and peer-to-peer innovations. Entrepreneur-
ship Theory and Practice, 39(1), 9–26. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/etap.12143
Burand, D. (2009). Microfinance managers consider online funding: Is it finance, marketing, or
something else entirely. Focus Note, 54, 1–12.
Burtch, G., Ghose, A., y Wattal, S. (2014). Cultural dierences and geography as determinants of
online prosocial lending. Mis Quarterly, 38(3), 773–794.
Dorfleitner, G., y Oswald, E.-M. (2016). Repayment behavior in peer-to-peer microfinanc-
ing: Empirical evidence from kiva. Review of Financial Economics, 30, 45–59. doi:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rfe.2016.05.005
Frydrych, D., y Kinder, T. (2015). How new is crowdfunding? the venture capital evolution
without revolution – discourse on risk capital themes and their relevance to poland.
Problemy Zarzadzania, 13(56), 177–194. doi: https://doi.org/10.7172/1644-9584.56.11
Gleasure, R., y Feller, J. (2016a). Does heart or head rule donor behaviors in charitable crowd-
funding markets? International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 20(4), 499–524. doi:
https://doi.org/10.1080/10864415.2016.1171975
Gleasure, R., y Feller, J. (2016b). Emerging technologies and the democratisation of financial
Jesús Manuel de Sancha-Navarro y cols. 71
Finance, Markets and Valuation Vol. 4, Num. 2 (Julio-Diciembre 2018), 63–72
services: A metatriangulation of crowdfunding research. Information and Organization,
26(4), 101–115. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infoandorg.2016.09.001
Hudon, M., y Traca, D. (2011). On the eiciency eects of subsidies in mi-
crofinance: An empirical inquiry. World Development, 39(6), 966–973. doi:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2009.10.017
Ibrahim, N., y Verliyantina. (2012). The model of crowdfunding to support small and micro
businesses in indonesia through a web-based platform. Procedia Economics and Finance,
4, 390–397. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/s2212-5671(12)00353-x
Imai, K. S., Gaiha, R., Thapa, G., y Annim, S. K. (2012). Microfinance and
poverty—a macro perspective. World Development, 40(8), 1675–1689. doi:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2012.04.013
Jesson, J., Matheson, L., y Lacey, F. M. (2011). Doing your literature review: Traditional and
systematic techniques. Sage.
Marakkath, N., y Attuel-Mendes, L. (2015). Can microfinance crowdfunding reduce financial
exclusion? regulatory issues. International Journal of Ba nk Marketing, 33(5), 624–636.
doi: https://doi.org/10.1108/ijbm-06-2014-0080
Moritz, A., y Block, J. H. (2016). Crowdfunding: A literature review and research directions. En
FGF studies in small business and entrepreneurship (pp. 25–53). Springer International
Publishing. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-18017-5_3
Riedl, J. (2013). Crowdfunding technology innovation. Computer, 46(3), 100–103. doi:
https://doi.org/10.1109/mc.2013.89
Valančien
˙
e, L., y Jegeleviči
¯
ut
˙
e, S. (2013). Valuation of crowdfunding: Benefits and drawbacks.
Economics and Management, 18(1). doi: https://doi.org/10.5755/j01.em.18.1.3713
Vega, C., Álvarez, S., y Sancho Meneses, J. (2013). Alternativas de financiación: mi-
crofinanzas y crowdfunding. Barcelona: Universidad Pompeu Fabra. Descargado
de
http://repositorio.educacionsuperior.gob.ec/bitstream/28000/1377/1/
T-SENESCYT-00528.pdf
Wagner, C., y Winkler, A. (2013). The vulnerability of microfinance to financial turmoil
– evidence from the global financial crisis. World Development, 51, 71–90. doi:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2013.05.008
Yum, H., Lee, B., y Chae, M. (2012). From the wisdom of crowds to my own judgment in microfi-
nance through online peer-to-peer lending platforms. Electronic Commerce Research and
Applications, 11(5), 469–483. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.elerap.2012.05.003
Zhang, B., Wardrop, R., Rau, P. R., y Gray, M. (2015). Moving mainstream: Benchmarking the
european alternative finance market. Journal of Financial Perspectives, 3(3), 60–76.
Jesús Manuel de Sancha-Navarro y cols. 72
