Abstract
Purpose
Crowdfunding (CF) has become an increasingly popular means of financing for entrepreneurs and has attracted significant attention from both researchers and practitioners in recent years. The purpose of this study is to investigate the core content and knowledge diffusion paths in the CF field. Specifically, we aim to identify the main topics and themes that have emerged in this field and to trace the evolution of CF knowledge over time.
Design/methodology/approach
This study employs co-word clustering and main path analysis (MPA) to examine the historical development of CF research based on 1,528 journal articles retrieved from the Web of Science Core Collection database.
Findings
The results of the analysis reveal that CF research focuses on seven themes: sustainability, entrepreneurial finance, entrepreneurship, fintech, social entrepreneurship, social capital, and microcredits. The analysis of the four main paths reveals that equity CF has been the dominant topic in the past years. Recently, CF research has tended to focus on topics such as fintech, the COVID-19 pandemic, competition, Brexit, and policy response.
Originality/value
To the authors' best knowledge, this is the first attempt to explore knowledge diffusion dynamics in the CF field. Overall, the study offers a structure for analyzing the paths through which knowledge is diffused, enabling scholars to effectively manage a large volume of research papers and gain a deeper understanding of the historical, current, and future trends in the development of CF.
Keywords
Citation
Rejeb, A., Rejeb, K., Appolloni, A. and Treiblmaier, H. (2023), "Navigating the crowdfunding landscape: a study of knowledge trajectories based on main path analysis", European Journal of Innovation Management, Vol. 26 No. 7, pp. 415-448. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJIM-03-2023-0201
Publisher
:Emerald Publishing Limited
Copyright © 2023, Abderahman Rejeb, Karim Rejeb, Andrea Appolloni and Horst Treiblmaier
License
Published by Emerald Publishing Limited. This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) licence. Anyone may reproduce, distribute, translate and create derivative works of this article (for both commercial and non-commercial purposes), subject to full attribution to the original publication and authors. The full terms of this licence may be seen at http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode
1. Introduction
In today's highly competitive business environment, entrepreneurs and innovators are increasingly seeking creative solutions to secure financing for their projects. The contemporary economic landscape is marked by strong globalization and diversification, which has expanded the search for financing sources beyond national borders and necessitates an in-depth understanding of these sources. Among the alternatives, crowdfunding (CF) has emerged as a modern financing option with a rapidly growing influence (Bargoni et al., 2022; Camilleri and Bresciani, 2022; St John et al., 2022). According to a report by Statista, global CF volumes are expected to reach $28.92bn by 2028, up from $13.64bn in 2021 (Statista, 2023). This represents a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 11.2% over the forecast period. Another report by Allied Market Research predicts that the global CF market will grow at a CAGR of 14.3% between 2022 and 2031, driven by the increasing number of startups and small and medium enterprises (SMEs) (Allied Market Research, 2023). Thus, the recent statistics and predictions indicate that CF is expected to continue its growth trajectory in the coming years, driven by factors such as increasing demand for alternative financing sources (Keliuotyte-Staniuleniene and Kukarenalte, 2020), increasing technology adoption rates (Mariyono, 2019), and the rise in the number of startups and SMEs (Gal-Or et al., 2019).
Conceptually, CF represents a collective effort by consumers to pool their money together, usually through the Internet, in order to invest and support endeavors initiated by other individuals or organizations (Ordanini et al., 2011). As an emerging trend, CF is helping to expand the role of consumers in investment activities. Kirby and Worner (2014) have categorized CF as an umbrella term that refers to the use of small amounts of money gathered from a large number of individuals or organizations to finance projects, personal loans, businesses, and other needs through an online web-based platform. The authors also identified four subcategories: donation CF, reward CF, peer-to-peer (P2P) lending, and equity CF. In donation CF, backers donate funds to a project without the expectation of receiving anything in return. This is mostly appropriate for ventures that are in their pre-setup stage because, at this point, entrepreneurs are still in the process of creating a workable business plan that aligns with the preferences and demands of consumers (Alva et al., 2021). Consequently, the level of risk involved is high, and committing to providing rewards may not be feasible. Reward CF enables entrepreneurs to offer backers a reward usually tied to the project or product they are seeking to fund (Felips et al., 2022). The reward can take different forms, such as a pre-order of the product, access to exclusive content, or a thank-you note (Buerger and Kleinert, 2021). The reward serves as an incentive for backers to contribute to the project and can help to mitigate the risk involved in the venture. In reward CF, the entrepreneur or project has no obligation to repay the funds received since the transaction is essentially a sale of the reward or a pre-order of the product.
P2P lending involves a loan transaction between two parties, wherein the lender lends money to the borrower with the expectation of receiving repayment of the principal amount plus interest over a predetermined period (Au et al., 2020; Basha et al., 2021). According to Pierrakis (2019), P2P lending has emerged as a method for facilitating unsecured personal loans between individuals without the need for borrowers to provide collateral to protect the lender against default. Finally, equity CF is an innovative method for financing that combines features of private and public equity (Cummings et al., 2020). This funding model allows for a large number of investors, including individuals, to invest relatively small amounts of money in exchange for an ownership stake in a business. Equity CF does not require businesses to go through the lengthy and expensive process of an initial public offering (IPO) to raise capital from a large pool of investors (Alalwan et al., 2022; Buttice et al., 2022; Cummings et al., 2020). Instead, the process is conducted through online platforms that connect investors with businesses seeking funding. As a result, this unique approach to entrepreneurial finance has the potential to democratize investment opportunities and level the playing field for small businesses seeking to raise capital.
Recently, CF research has emerged as a vibrant and rapidly growing field, encompassing a wide range of topics and disciplines. In recent years, several studies have been conducted that systematically examine the entire domain (see Table 1). For example, Gil-Gomez et al. (2023) employ a bibliometric analysis to provide a quantitative perspective on the study of CF. Their primary aim is to ascertain whether CF is truly a growing area of interest and to identify the most productive and influential sources of scholarly research in this domain. Butticè and Ughetto (2021) explore the current state and emerging trends in the CF literature considering a range of key factors, including the characteristics of authors and publications related to CF, the thematic areas, the methodologies applied, the primary outlets disseminating research findings, and the diversity of the scientific community engaged in the study of CF. Similarly, Baber and Fanea-Ivanovici (2022) conduct a bibliometric analysis to quantitatively evaluate the latest CF studies. Based on 1,951 journal articles, they analyze various aspects of CF research, such as the number of papers produced each year, the categories in which CF studies were classified, citation records, highly cited authors and papers, most productive authors, and the originating countries of CF research. Finally, Rabbani et al. (2022) conduct a bibliometric review and meta-analysis to analyze the academic research on CF and P2P lending. The authors' findings indicate that there has been significant growth in publications on this topic since 2013, with the highest number of citations observed in 2014. While the existing reviews and bibliometric analyses offer valuable insights into CF research, none of the prior works has used the main path analysis (MPA) technique to investigate knowledge trajectories in the CF domain. MPA has been extensively applied in other fields, as shown in studies conducted by Rejeb et al. (2022b), Fu et al. (2019), and Yu and Sheng (2020). This study aims to bridge this gap by exploring the knowledge formation and progress of the CF domain using MPA.
The objective of this study is to provide a comprehensive understanding of the CF field by combining co-word analysis and MPA. These quantitative techniques enable the effective analysis of a large number of papers to identify topics and knowledge diffusion paths in the CF literature, while minimizing subjective analysis biases. By examining the historical development of CF and identifying current and future research directions, these methods can both motivate scholars and enhance their understanding of the CF domain.
The study makes two significant contributions. Firstly, the use of co-word analysis in combination with MPA is novel in CF research. Secondly, the MPA method enables a comprehensive interpretation and analysis of the CF research domain through various approaches, including local (forward and backward), global, and key-route main paths. The visualization of the relationships between seminal articles in the research domain allows one to easily track and trace the evolution of CF and its core topics. Additionally, this study identifies research hotspots and highlights recently active research areas.
The paper is structured as follows. In the following section 2, we present details on data collection and the research methods being used. Section 3 discusses the results of the co-word clustering analysis, followed by an in-depth description of the MPA method in Section 4. Section 5 presents a discussion as well as implications for academics and practitioners, followed by a brief conclusion in Section 6.
2. Methodology
2.1 Data collection
We chose the Web of Science (WoS) Core Collection database as the data source for this study, due to its high standing within academia. According to Xiao et al. (2014), WoS is widely recognized as a premier academic database that encompasses a plethora of impactful journals. Its high quality and wide-ranging coverage have made it a preferred choice for MPA and bibliometric research (Mostafa, 2020; Rejeb et al., 2022b). A detailed description of our review process is presented in Figure 1.
We used the following search string for the review: Topic Search (TS) = (“crowdfund*” OR “crowd invest*” OR “online peer lend*” OR “crowdinvest*” OR “crowd fund*” OR “peer-to-peer (P2P) lending” OR “P2P lend*” OR “peer-to-peer lend*” OR “micro lend*” OR “microlend*” OR “micro-lend*” OR “microfinanc*”) (Cai et al., 2021; Chaudhary et al., 2022). To conduct the review, we used four sub-databases from the WoS: Social Science Citation Index (SSCI), Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED), Emerging Sources Citation Index (ESCI), and Art and Humanities Citation Index (A&HCI). The time frame of the review spans from 1970 to 2022, and the data was collected on February 23, 2023. The final analysis only included journal articles written in the English language. The subject areas were limited to business and management to ensure consistency in research results and improve systemization and generalizability, while still ensuring the comprehensive exploration of the CF field (Rejeb et al., 2022d). To promote transparency and clarity, the search query used to retrieve publications is given in Appendix 1. Following a manual review of all article metadata to remove irrelevant publications, a total of 1,528 documents were obtained from the database, which were subsequently used to generate a citation network. Finally, the program package Pajek was used for the network analysis and visualization.
2.2 Research method
In the realm of scientometric research, CiteSpace, a pioneering software application, facilitates the elucidation of intellectual landscapes by employing co-word analysis (Li et al., 2022; Liu et al., 2015). This analytical method enables the discernment of latent thematic structures and topical trends within a corpus of scholarly publications, thereby providing insights into the evolution of scientific domains (Li and Chu, 2017; Li et al., 2020a). By extracting and juxtaposing salient terms from titles, abstracts, and keywords, co-word analysis in CiteSpace engenders a comprehensive network representation that encapsulates the interrelationships between concepts, signifying their relative importance. Consequently, this intricate approach fosters the identification of nascent research avenues, expedites interdisciplinary synergies, and ultimately contributes to the advancement of human knowledge. Several fields have successfully utilized co-word analysis (Liu et al., 2011; Ouyang et al., 2018; Rejeb et al., 2023; Rejeb et al., 2022a), giving credence to the assumption that the chosen keywords can effectively encapsulate the primary content of papers. Consistent with previous research (Yu and Sheng, 2021), we performed co-word analysis to comprehend the research paradigm of the CF knowledge domain.
Chen et al. (2019) highlight the prevalence of citation-based analyses such as co-citation analysis, bibliographic coupling analysis, and MPA in identifying the intellectual structure and development paths of a domain through the information contained in citations. Bibliographic coupling analysis investigates the shared intellectual background of publications by examining the references common to them, under the assumption that the greater the number of shared references, the stronger the common intellectual foundation (Zupic and Čater, 2015). Co-citation analysis, on the other hand, explores the dynamics, structure, and paradigm shifts of a knowledge domain by examining co-cited works and identifying the uniformity of references and concepts that relate to the research area (Arroyo-Machado et al., 2020). Highly co-cited publications in a co-citation network highlight well-studied concepts and ideas in a particular research field. To capture the flow of knowledge between articles, Hummon and Dereian (1989) proposed MPA, which relies on direct citation relationships. The effectiveness of MPA has led to its adoption in social network analysis (Hummon and Carley, 1993) and conflict resolution research (Carley et al., 1993). Batagelj (2003) later introduced the search path count algorithm (SPC) and Liu and Lu (2012) suggested several refinements, including the key-route main path. Current main path techniques include local main paths (forward and backward) and global main paths. Conceptually, the local main path refers to the most frequently co-cited articles within a specific cluster, while the global main path refers to the most highly cited articles across the entire network. By analyzing these main paths, researchers can gain insights into the most influential ideas and concepts within a particular research field (Yu and Sheng, 2021). This study used a citation network technique explained by Liu and Lu (2012) to construct the main path and weight the citation network.
To illustrate our approach, Figure 2 depicts a citation network consisting of nodes and arrows that represent articles and the dissemination of ideas, respectively. The network has three types of nodes: sources (blue), intermediates (green), and sinks (yellow). Sources are nodes that are only cited, sinks are nodes that only cite, and intermediates both cite and are cited by other nodes. The SPC of each link is calculated by counting the number of times the link is traversed by paths from sources to sinks. For example, link B-D has an SPC of 3 because three paths traverse it, which are A-B-D-F-H, A-B-D-F-G, and A-B-D-F-I-J.
Once the links of the citation network have been weighted, the subsequent step is to use various algorithms to create main paths. The forward local main path starts from sources and ends at sinks and selects the largest SPC value of all links stemming from a node. For instance, let's assume that two links originate from node B: B-D and B-E. B-E is preferred since its SPC value is greater than that of B-D. After that, node E is selected as the starting point for the subsequent search. The search will stop when the sink is reached. The forward local main path can be formed, which consists of the trio of A-B-E-D-F-I-J, A-B-E-F-H, and A-B-E-F-G.
In contrast to the forward local main path, the backward local main path starts searching from the sink nodes to the source nodes, that is, from the latest articles to the earlier ones. There are a total of 9 links connected to the sink nodes H, G, J. Initially, the task is to select the links with the highest SPC, which in this case is 5. The search will terminate once any of the source nodes is reached. Consequently, the backward local main path in the citation network is the combination of the path A-B-E-D-F-I-J, C-E-D-F-G, and C-E-D-F-H. While the local main path focuses on the maximum value within a small area, the global main path seeks to achieve the maximum value over the entire network. Hence, the global main path is identified as the path that has the highest SPC value overall. In this case, the global main path is A-B-E-D-F-I-J as it has the largest cumulative SPC value out of all the paths from the source nodes to the sink nodes.
Although the local and global main paths have their benefits, they may not include all the links with the highest SPC values. Liu and Lu (2012) proposed a solution to this problem called the “key-route” main path. This method involves four steps. Firstly, the link with the highest SPC in the citation network is chosen as the key route. In this case, D-F is the key route. Secondly, a forward search is performed from the end node of the key route (F) until a sink node is reached, and a backward search is conducted from the start node of the key route (D) until a source node is reached. Either the local or global method can be used to obtain the key-route main path during this step. The number of top citation links in constructing the key-route main paths is arbitrary, and more key routes can be selected to present greater detail. For example, D-F and B-E can be chosen as the top two key routes and repeating the second step will identify the second key-route main path.
The integration of the local (forward and backward), global, and key-route main path analyses provides multiple perspectives to reveal and recognize the development patterns of a research field. The local main path approach highlights the most significant links at each conjecture and concentrates on the local maximum. However, it may not cover the path with the highest accumulated SPC value. To address this limitation, the global main approach is applied, along with the key-route main path, which takes into account all the most influential connections in the citation network. By utilizing these four main paths, the objective of this study is to comprehensively illustrate the development patterns of the CF domain. Consequently, this approach enables us to systematically understand the progression of CF research over the years and to identify the works that contributed significantly to the development of the CF knowledge body.
3. Results of co-word clustering analysis
Keywords summarize the content published in research, and analyzing them can enable researchers to detect emerging research frontiers and trending topics in a field (Rejeb et al., 2020). In this study we use CiteSpace (Chen, 2006) to examine the thematic development of the CF domain. By applying the g-index as the criterion for keyword visualization, the final network includes 455 nodes and 951 links. The scaling factor k is directly proportional to the size of the network and, in this study, the default value of 25 was used. The cluster function in CiteSpace was employed to form a cluster with a modularity of 0.638. The high silhouette value (i.e., a metric for evaluating the quality of cluster analysis) of 0.856 confirms the validity and stability of the results. The clusters' labels were generated using Latent Semantic Indexing (LSI) (Shen and Ho, 2020) and will be described individually in the following sections. Figure 3 displays the horizontal timelines of the clusters, while the metrics and keywords of each cluster are summarized in Table 2. The bubbles, or nodes, in the visualization represent individual keywords, with the size of the bubble indicating that keyword's frequency of occurrence within the dataset. Larger bubbles correspond to keywords that appear more frequently in the publications analyzed, while smaller bubbles correspond to less frequent keywords. The lines, or edges, between the bubbles represent co-occurrence relationships between the keywords. The strength of the relationship between two keywords is indicated by the thickness of the line, with thicker lines representing stronger co-occurrence relationships.
3.1 Sustainability
Based on the number of keywords included in the cluster, the largest cluster (#0) is sustainability. More specifically, the cluster revolves around the intersection of sustainability, development, and CF, particularly in low- and middle-income countries (Böckel et al., 2021; Motylska-Kuzma, 2018; Testa et al., 2022). This cluster is characterized by a wide range of keywords, including “microfinance institutions”, “sustainability”, “female empowerment”, “female entrepreneurship”, “developing country”, “Bangladesh”, “blockchain”, “efficiency”, etc. The prominence of these keywords suggests a growing interest in the potential for CF to serve as an effective tool for promoting sustainability and empowering female entrepreneurs in developing countries (Groza et al., 2020; Vismara, 2019). The geographical focus on countries such as Bangladesh, Malaysia, and Pakistan highlights the particular relevance of these issues in regions with high levels of poverty and economic inequality (Ab-Rahim and Shah, 2019; Akhter, 2018). Furthermore, the inclusion of keywords such as “blockchain” and “governance” indicates a growing interest in exploring decentralized platforms and transparent governance structures as means to enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of CF initiatives (Nguyen et al., 2021). The keyword “microfinance institutions” suggests that CF is being examined as a potential complement or alternative to traditional microfinance institutions, particularly in the context of promoting sustainability and development in developing countries. Finally, the inclusion of “data envelopment analysis” as a keyword implies that researchers are employing rigorous methodologies to assess the efficiency and performance of CF platforms in achieving their sustainability and development goals (Al-Awlaqi and Aamer, 2019; Chauhan, 2021). Overall, Cluster #0 suggests a strong and growing interest in the potential for CF to promote sustainability and empower female entrepreneurs in developing countries, with a focus on the role of blockchain technology, governance, microfinance institutions, and rigorous evaluation methodologies.
3.2 Entrepreneurial finance
The co-word analysis reveals a distinct cluster focused on the nexus of entrepreneurial finance and CF, with a particular emphasis on reward-based CF. The keywords that comprise this cluster include terms such as “reward-based CF”, “entrepreneurial finance”, “information asymmetry”, “gender”, and “motivation”. The high frequency of these keywords in the literature suggests a growing interest in exploring the potential of CF to support entrepreneurial ventures (Brown et al., 2018; Drover et al., 2017; Thies et al., 2019), particularly in the context of reward-based CF. This cluster's focus on information asymmetry, gender, motivation, and social networks suggests a growing interest in examining the factors that influence the success of CF campaigns (Agrawal et al., 2015; Alegre and Moleskis, 2021; Bapna and Ganco, 2021; Courtney et al., 2017). Keywords such as “initial coin offering” and “CF platform” highlight a particular interest in investigating emerging forms of CF, including those that use blockchain technology (Bogusz et al., 2020; Nguyen et al., 2021). The inclusion of the keyword “regulation” in the cluster also suggests a growing concern with ensuring the safety and legitimacy of CF platforms, particularly in the face of emerging forms of CF and the potential for fraud and abuse (Baucus and Mitteness, 2016; Siering et al., 2016). The keyword “e-commerce” indicates a possible connection between CF and online marketplaces, which could have significant implications for the role of CF in supporting the growth of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). Finally, there is an emphasis on the use of signals or cues that communicate quality and credibility to potential funders, which might help to address concerns about the legitimacy and safety of CF platforms and increase the likelihood of success for CF campaigns (Bogusz et al., 2019; Chen, 2023).
3.3 Entrepreneurship
Cluster #2 discusses entrepreneurship, featuring a diverse range of keywords such as “entrepreneurship”, “equity crowdfunding”, “startup”, “crowdsourcing”, and “signal theory”. Generally, the entrepreneurial process represents a topical area in CF, and there is a growing interest in exploring the ways in which CF can support the development and growth of new ventures (Arora et al., 2020; Chaudhary et al., 2022). The presence of “equity crowdfunding” and “startup” within the cluster underscores a particular focus on using CF to support the financing stage of early-stage startups, especially through the insurance of equity-based CF campaigns. Moreover, CF is related to broader collaborative and network-based approaches to innovation and entrepreneurship. In the cluster, the high frequency of the keyword “signal theory” is noteworthy, pointing to a growing interest in the role of information signaling in the context of CF campaigns. Ahlers et al. (2015) argue that potential funders are more likely to invest in a CF campaign when the campaign's creators are able to signal their quality, expertise, and credibility through certain indicators or cues. By bringing quality and credibility, CF campaigns can attract a larger number of funders and secure the necessary funding to bring their ideas to fruition. Further keywords suggest a particular interest in examining the potential for CF to support entrepreneurship in “emerging markets” (Ault and Spicer, 2022; Li et al., 2021; Liu et al., 2023) and the use of “fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis” as a methodological approach for understanding the complex and context-specific factors that influence CF outcomes (De Crescenzo et al., 2020; Li et al., 2021).
3.4 Fintech
Cluster #3 of CF research centers around the intersection of CF and financial technology (fintech), as reflected by the presence of the following keywords: “fintech”, “venture capital”, “bank”, and “technology innovation”. This implies a growing interest from scholars in examining the potential of CF as a means to support innovation and technology development in the financial sector, particularly in emerging markets such as China (Huang et al., 2018; Xie et al., 2019). One area of focus within this cluster is the role of fintech in supporting sustainable development (Ahern, 2021; Darmansyah et al., 2021; Dospinescu et al., 2021). Keywords such as “sustainable development” and “sharing economy” show a recognition of the potential for fintech to promote more sustainable and equitable economic practices, particularly for SMEs. By providing alternative sources of funding to traditional bank loans or venture capital investments, CF can help to promote greater financial inclusion and reduce the reliance on traditional financial institutions that may not always be accessible or willing to lend to SMEs (Bongomin et al., 2020; Fraser, 2019). Similarly, researchers have focused on the potential of CF to support technological innovation within the financial sector (Cummings et al., 2020; Elliot et al., 2018). CF therefore provides a means for innovative fintech startups to access the necessary capital to develop and bring their products or services to market. This can lead to the emergence of new, disruptive business models and technologies that help drive greater efficiency, accessibility, and inclusivity in the financial sector (Ault and Spicer, 2022). Therefore, CF can help increase financial inclusion, reduce reliance on traditional banking systems, and promote the development of innovative fintech solutions.
3.5 Social entrepreneurship
The focus of Cluster #4 is on social entrepreneurship and its potential role in promoting positive social and environmental impact. Examples of main keywords in the cluster include “social entrepreneurship”, “base of the pyramid” (i.e., the poorest two-thirds of the population), and “social enterprise”. Scholars have explored the role of CF in supporting social entrepreneurship and promoting its expansion in developing nations where traditional sources of funding are limited (Chandna, 2022; Hoos, 2022). Another area of focus within this cluster is the decision-making processes of social enterprises in the CF context. Scholars such as Mair and Martí (2006) note that social enterprises can face unique challenges in balancing their social and economic objectives when seeking funding from investors or donors. The keywords “decision-making” and “corporate governance” indicate a recognition of these issues and a heightened interest in analyzing how social enterprises can effectively navigate them. Additionally, “microlending” and “charity” often occur in the CF literature, indicating the possibility of using CF to fund microfinance and charity projects in underdeveloped regions (Luo et al., 2022; Marakkath and Attuel-mendes, 2015). Several researchers (e.g., Ab-Rahim and Shah, 2019; Bongomin et al., 2020) have claimed that microfinance and other kinds of social entrepreneurship can be effective means of fighting poverty and fostering long-term growth. CF can provide a means for these initiatives to access the necessary capital to realize their objectives. Finally, the appearance of the keyword “social performance” suggests a focus on the measurement and evaluation of social impact. For example, Beisland et al. (2021) assess the factors that drive the social performance ratings of microfinance institutions (MFIs) and the importance of social indicators (e.g., outreach, social objectives, staff commitment) in adhering to both financial and social demands. Gupta and Mirchandani (2020) explore the impact of ownership structure and corporate governance on the social performance of microfinance institutions and highlight their role in MFIs’ mission for social impact. Therefore, CF can provide an opportunity for enterprises to showcase their social impact to a wider audience and to build a community of supporters who are invested in their success.
3.6 Social capital
The keywords in Cluster #5 suggest that researchers are interested in understanding how CF can promote financial inclusion through the use of social media and collective action (Battisti et al., 2022; Bongomin et al., 2019; Claus et al., 2020). A focus on social capital is also evident in this cluster, with researchers looking at how CF can build relationships and networks among individuals and organizations (Abdeldayem and Al Dulaimi, 2022; Buttice et al., 2017). The keyword “kickstarter” is notable in this cluster since it represents a popular CF platform that has enabled thousands of creative projects to be funded. Scholars are likely interested in studying the success of Kickstarter campaigns and how they have been able to mobilize a large number of donors to support a wide range of products (Blaseg et al., 2021; Chen et al., 2016). The focus on social capital is also reflected in the keyword “collective action”. By leveraging the power of social networks, CF platforms can enable individuals to pool their resources and support causes that they care about (Angulo-Ruiz et al., 2020; Battaglia et al., 2022; Cai et al., 2021). Through CF, people can come together to create positive social change at a range of different scales.
3.7 Microcredits
The final cluster of CF research features keywords such as “microcredit”, “sustainable development goals”, and “corporate social responsibility”. This cluster demonstrates that scholars are curious about the potential of CF to foster economic growth and social development in emerging economies (Atiase et al., 2020; Chen and Yuan, 2021). The keyword “microcredit” has a high occurrence frequency, referring to a type of financing that provides small loans to individuals who lack access to traditional banking services (Bhuiyan and Ivlevs, 2019; Jebarajakirthy and Lobo, 2015; Selvaraj et al., 2019). Microcredits via CF can be used to assist small business owners and entrepreneurs in poor countries in expanding their operations and better supporting their livelihoods. Sustainable development goals and corporate social responsibility are also part of this set of related search terms, reflecting the interest of academics in studying the role of CF in contributing to broader social and environmental goals (Li et al., 2020b; Mastrangelo et al., 2020; Sierra and Rodriguez-Conde, 2021). For example, CF can be used to support social ventures that aim to address social and environmental challenges, such as climate change or poverty (Anglin et al., 2022; Do et al., 2022; Moser and Gonzalez, 2015). Furthermore, researchers in this cluster are also committed to systematically evaluating the effect of CF on a variety of outcomes, including financial performance and social impact, as evidenced by their use of advanced statistical methods and theoretical frameworks such as structural equation modeling and technology acceptance models. The inclusion of “self-help group” as a keyword indicates that scholars are keen to learn how CF can assist individuals and communities in taking responsibility for their own economic development (Ernesto Amoros et al., 2019; Siddhartha et al., 2022).
4. Results of MPA
In this section we analyze various main paths, including local (forward and backward), global, and key-route main paths. Typically, a path displays each article as a node, labeled with the lead author and publication year, with the arrow indicating the direction of knowledge flow. The thickness of the arrow also indicates the strength of the flow. Figure 4 depicts the complete citation network of the selected articles, comprising 1,528 nodes and 12,699 links. In the figure, the first category of nodes consists of the 1,357 nodes in the largest subnetwork, which forms the hub of the whole network. This subnet contains the most important citation linkages among articles and hence provides the major paths under consideration. The second category comprises nodes that have few citations, link to few other articles in the network, and are found mostly on the perimeter of the network. Nodes completely cut off from the rest of the network constitute the third category.
4.1 Local main paths
Using the lead authors' names and year of publication for identification, Figures 5 and 6 show the local main paths of the CF domain, comprising 33 and 24 articles, respectively. The two local paths share the 13 green colored articles in common, while the nodes displayed as yellow were unique to that path. Galak et al. (2011) and Herzenstein et al. (2011a) were the first articles on the forward local main path, initiating the development of the CF research field. Galak et al. (2011) investigate the characteristics of borrowers that lend through Kiva, an online microfinance platform which has emerged to address world poverty. They find that lenders prefer to lend to individual borrowers over groups and to borrowers who are socially proximate to themselves. Herzenstein et al. (2011a) look at the herd mentality of investors in P2P loan auctions on Prosper.com. Their findings reveal intentional herding behavior on the part of lenders, who prefer to participate in auctions that have already attracted several bids. This trend, however, begins to fade once an auction has reached its financial goal. Galak et al. (2011) and Herzenstein et al. (2011a) merge into the paper from Herzenstein et al. (2011b), which explores the impact of identity claims in borrower narratives on lender decisions regarding unsecured personal loans.
Building on Herzenstein et al. (2011b), Zhang and Liu (2012) investigate the funding dynamics of borrower listings on Prosper.com and find evidence of rational herding as well as the impact of publicly observable borrower characteristics on herding momentum. The authors also demonstrate that assumptions of rational herding perform better than irrational herding in forecasting loan performance. Later, Burtch et al. (2013) study the social influence of crowd-funded marketplace journalism projects by analyzing the antecedents and consequences of the contribution process. The findings confirm a crowding-out effect and a positive association between the duration of funding, exposure of the pitch, and readership upon publication of the story. Overall, the papers at the beginning of the forward local main path analyze behaviors and decision-making in alternative lending markets, including CF, by examining the impact of factors such as contribution patterns, narratives, herding behavior, and rational decision-making.
The backward local main path begins with five different studies to those revealed by the forward local main path. Two articles, Khavul et al. (2009) and Khavul (2010), study microfinance in emerging markets, with the former exploring the establishment and evolution of family firms in East Africa and the latter discussing the potential for microfinance to boost economic growth in developing nations. These studies merge at Bruton et al. (2011), who explore the behavior of microloan recipients in international business by analyzing qualitative case studies conducted in Guatemala and the Dominican Republic. Subsequently, Khavul et al. (2013) analyze the process of institutional change in microfinance, which moves through several stages and is influenced by the interplay between institutional entrepreneurs and established organizational fields. Allison et al. (2015) examine how the linguistic framing of entrepreneurial narratives affects fundraising outcomes for microloans garnered from CF and how this framing impacts prosocial lending. According to the authors, framing entrepreneurial narratives as an opportunity to help others, rather than solely as a business opportunity, leads to more positive fundraising outcomes. Overall, the common focus of the articles at the start of the backward local main path is microfinance and microlending, with specific attention given to prosocial lending, informal businesses in emerging economies, institutional change, and poverty alleviation.
The two paths converge at the research of Cholakova and Clarysse (2015), who investigate the drivers of investment in equity-based CF platforms and examine the influence of financial and non-financial motivations on the decision to invest or pledge. After this point, the two paths begin to diverge by leading different articles. In the forward local main path, Ahlers et al. (2015) examine the effectiveness of signals used by entrepreneurs to attract financial resources from small investors through equity CF and find that successful fundraising in equity CF can be influenced by effective signals, such as retaining equity and providing comprehensive information concerning risks. The two papers which follow, Vismara (2016, 2018), also focus on equity CF, with the first examining equity retention and social capital's impact on investors and the second studying information cascades among individual investors. Next, Block et al. (2018) explore the effects of updates posted during equity CF on crowd participation and investment amounts. The authors find that posting updates has a positive effect on crowd participation, particularly if they are brief, simple to understand, and filled with exciting new information about the startup. Building on these findings, Hornuf and Schwienbacher (2018) and Hornuf et al. (2018) examine the factors that affect crowd participation and the success of equity CF campaigns, as well as the determinants of follow-up funding and firm failure after such campaigns have taken place. In short, the focus of these six studies unique to the forward local main path is on various aspects of equity CF, including signaling, updates, follow-up funding, firm failure, equity retention, and information cascades among investors.
Meanwhile, the backward local main path heads towards six different studies. Ryu and Kim (2016) develop a typology of four types of CF sponsors based on their motivations for participating in a project and the consequences of these funding motivations. Skirnevskiy et al. (2017) explore the development of internal social capital between project creators and backers on CF platforms and its potential spillover effects on external online communities. McKenny et al. (2017) identify the most promising questions and theories involving CF by surveying key thought leaders in the entrepreneurship field and proposing a cross-disciplinary research agenda to inform scholarly efforts. The next three papers, Estrin et al. (2018), Walthoff-Borm et al. (2018a), and Walthoff-Borm et al. (2018b), concentrate on the impact of equity CF on entrepreneurial finance and firm performance, as well as the factors driving firms to seek equity CF as a funding option. These six studies in the backward local main path provide additional insights into different facets of equity CF, such as its development, uptake, sponsor types, shareholder structures, and firm performance.
After Walthoff-Borm et al. (2018a,b), the backward local main path includes twelve papers which also appear in the forward local main path. Four articles focus on equity CF and its impact on the reputation of follow-on venture capital investors, as well as the impact of market timing on the capital structure of private firms that raise the initial equity through CF (Buttice et al., 2022; Buttice and Vismara, 2022; Cerpentier et al., 2022; Cumming et al., 2019). Cappa et al. (2021) and Kleinert and Mochkabadi (2022) study the dynamics and critical success factors of CF, while Block et al. (2021) and Meoli et al. (2022) focus broadly on the governance and regulatory environment of CF. These studies culminate in the recent study by Coakley et al. (2022), which focuses on the strategic entrepreneurial choice between the UK Big 3 equity CF platforms and finds that larger and more heterogeneous teams are more likely to choose the co-investment model and raise funds using campaigns involving professional investors. Two streams emerge from Coakley et al. (2022) on the forward local main path. One stream deals with the impact of CF on the economy and entrepreneurship, the factors affecting the success of CF campaigns (Yasar et al., 2022), the effect of competition and external events such as COVID-19 and Brexit (Cumming and Reardon, 2022; Cumming et al., 2022; Vu and Christian, 2023), as well as the consequences of overfunding early-stage ventures with excessive capital (Murray and Fisher, 2023; Weber et al., 2023). The second stream contains studies with a focus on the factors that contribute to the success of equity CF, including community-level social capital (Barbi et al., 2023), third-party signals (Gama et al., 2023), internal social capital among immigrant entrepreneurs (Buttice and Useche, 2022), and the impact of corporate finance perspectives and valuation on entrepreneurial ventures (Colombo et al., 2023). This second stream contains the final three articles of the backward local main path.
4.2 Global main path
The citation network analysis identifies the two local paths based on local influential links, while the global main path is identified as the path with the strongest overall influence. This path comprises 26 relevant articles and is depicted in Figure 7. The strongest SPC value belongs to the connection between Buttice and Vismara (2022) and Kleinert and Mochkabadi (2022), followed by the connection between Allison et al. (2015) and Cholakova and Clarysse (2015), and then the connection between Kleinert and Mochkabadi (2022) and Buttice et al. (2022). Overall, these studies focus on equity CF and its potential for democratization and inclusion, the effect of gender stereotypes on quality signals, and the correlation between a successful campaign and the attraction of venture capital investors. The citation linkages were significantly thinner at the start of the global main path than they were at the end, suggesting that the publications at the end of the path garnered more attention and recognition than the earlier published works. The appearance of these articles at the end of the path raises questions about whether this truly reflects their significance in the CF field, or whether the result can be largely explained by the trend of increasing interest in the field in general. Consequently, the influence of these articles must be reevaluated when new research is published.
4.3 Key-route main path
To further understanding of how CF research has evolved, we also detected a key-route main path using the local method. To promote comprehensiveness in the analysis, the key route was set to 19. As can be seen in Figure 8, the CF domain has both converging and diverging knowledge diffusion cycles. All articles on the key-route main path also feature on the local main paths. The initial section of the key-route main path reveals a divergence-convergence structure with three notable findings. Firstly, during the initial phases of CF research, the focus lay on microfinancing and entrepreneurship in developing economies, predominantly in East Africa and South America. Microfinance has been shown to have positive effects on economic development and poverty reduction, and earlier studies emphasize this potential while also stressing the significance of analyzing the cultural, social, and economic context in which microfinancing programs are implemented. The focus then transitions away from evaluating microloan and CF markets to investigating the behavior of lenders and crowd funders in these markets and examining the efficacy of signals employed by entrepreneurs. The earlier studies on the path converge at Cholakova and Clarysse (2015), who investigate the motivations behind investing or pledging in CF campaigns. This study serves as a pivotal point for further studies focused on equity CF and related topics, including the behavior of CF sponsors, the significance of social capital in terms of CF success, the effect of updates on CF participation, and the impact of equity CF on business outcomes. Entrepreneurial finance and sustainability in equity CF are among the other themes covered. From 2021 onward, research has concentrated on CF as a source of capital for startup businesses. Market structure, success factors, governance, capital structure, and the influence of gender bias and stereotypes are the core topics that are examined. CF has also been studied in relation to a variety of contextual circumstances, including the COVID-19 pandemic, competition, Brexit, and policy response. Overall, recent studies aim to offer a better understanding of CF, its potential as a source of finance for startups, and the elements leading to its success and failure.
5. Discussion and implications
This research has examined the topics that have been discussed in the domain of CF by analyzing the co-word clusters and citation network of 1,528 articles. Taking into account the largest subnetwork, our study has identified four main paths that show the diffusion of knowledge in the CF field from different perspectives. The analysis of local main paths enables researchers to visualize the historical evolution of the CF domain. The global main path and the key-route main path were used to identify the most influential and comprehensive structures of the CF field.
According to the analysis of co-occurrence clusters, CF research has mainly focused on sustainability, entrepreneurial finance, entrepreneurship, fintech, social entrepreneurship, social capital, and microcredits. Among these, the role of CF in fostering sustainability has received a significant amount of attention in recent years. The keywords related to economic sustainability, such as efficiency, performance, financial performance, and governance, indicate its importance. The results also reveal entrepreneurial finance as one of the most topical areas in the CF field. Studies on this topic have examined several aspects of entrepreneurial finance, including the effect of gender on CF results, the impact of information asymmetry and signaling in reward-based CF, and the impact of social networks. Meanwhile, the analysis of the four main paths reveals that equity CF has been the dominant topic in the past years. In the forward local main path, the earlier studies focus on understanding the behavior and decision-making of investors and borrowers in CF. Specifically, researchers looked at how factors such as contribution patterns, narratives, herding behavior, and rational decision-making impact the performance and success of CF markets.
In contrast, the backward local main path detected an emphasis in earlier research on microfinance and microlending, in an attempt to comprehend the significance of financial inclusion in poverty reduction and economic growth. The particular focus on prosocial lending and informal businesses in developing countries underlines the potential for microfinance to empower underrepresented and marginalized groups through access to capital. An additional focus on institutional change implies the need for legislative frameworks and infrastructure that facilitate the expansion of microfinance institutions and advance financial inclusion. Overall, earlier works in the backward local main path shed light on the progress of microfinance research and its contribution to broader development agendas.
The local main paths reveal that equity CF has emerged as a novel form of financing that has gained popularity over the last few years. As equity CF has grown more prevalent, scholars have shifted their attention from exploring its basics to studying more nuanced aspects of CF. One area of focus has been on the different signals that investors use when deciding whether or not to invest in a business through equity CF. These signals allude to the quality of the company's management team, its financial projections, and its business strategy as a whole. Moreover, research indicates that company updates can shape investor behavior, with businesses that provide regular updates to their investors having a greater chance of receiving follow-up funding. Further areas of research focus on the relationship between equity CF and firm failure as well as the founders' ability to retain equity. As equity CF implies that company shares are sold to investors, founders may end up owning a smaller percentage of the business than they would have if they had pursued more conventional financing methods. In addition, several studies have looked at the ways in which information cascades can occur among investors in equity CF. This can happen when early investors attract more investors to the company by sharing positive information about their experiences with the investment.
Finally, the analysis of the key-route main path reveals that recent research has focused on the factors that contribute to the success and failure of CF campaigns for startups. These factors include market structure, capital structure, governance structure, and the influence of gender bias and stereotypes. CF has also been studied in relation to other phenomena, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, competition, Brexit, and policy response. These contextual factors can impact the success or failure of CF campaigns and thus require further investigation.
5.1 Theoretical implications
The analysis presented in the paper plots the evolution of CF research and highlights its multidimensional implications. Theoretical implications emerge from understanding the interconnectedness of various research themes and their impact on the CF landscape. The emphasis on sustainability, entrepreneurial finance, and financial inclusion suggests that CF has the potential to not only drive economic growth but also to promote social and environmental objectives. The growing interest in equity CF and the in-depth analysis of investor behavior, signals, and information cascades reflect the maturation of the field, as researchers seek to better understand the intricacies of this innovative financing method. Furthermore, the study of contextual factors such as the COVID-19 pandemic, Brexit, and policy responses adds another layer of complexity to CF research, highlighting the need for a more dynamic approach to understanding the impact of these external factors on the success and failure of CF campaigns. Additionally, the emphasis on institutional change in the context of microfinance underlines the importance of establishing enabling environments for financial inclusion and the expansion of microfinance institutions. This suggests that researchers should consider the interplay between regulatory frameworks, market forces, and individual behaviors to gain a comprehensive understanding of the CF domain. Based on the findings of the co-word analysis and MPA, this study suggests several future research directions in the CF field:
Exploration of novel forms of CF: While equity CF has gained significant popularity in recent years, other forms of CF (e.g., reward-based CF, donation-based CF, debt-based CF, and hybrid CF models) that have yet not been substantially explored may also hold promise. Researchers could investigate alternative models of CF and their differential impacts on startups and small businesses.
Further investigation of the relationship between CF and sustainability: The findings of the paper suggest that CF has played a significant role in fostering sustainability. Future research could explore the mechanisms through which CF can contribute to sustainable development and the effectiveness of such approaches. This could involve assessing the success of CF models that concentrate on sustainability, such as those that support projects linked to renewable energy, waste reduction, or other environmentally beneficial efforts (Bento et al., 2019). The role of CF in resolving issues of social and economic sustainability is another area that could be studied. CF could, for instance, be studied for its ability to bolster small enterprises in underdeveloped nations or finance initiatives that advance social cohesion and economic opportunity in underserved areas (Bongomin et al., 2020).
Examination of the impact of CF on firm failure: As the popularity of CF continues to grow, there is a need to understand the factors that contribute to firm failure in CF campaigns. Researchers could investigate the impact of CF on premature scaling and other forms of mismanagement that can lead to failure. Such research could help identify strategies to mitigate these risks and increase the likelihood of success for CF campaigns. Additionally, future studies could explore the effectiveness of different types of CF campaigns (e.g., reward-based, equity-based CF) in reducing the risk of failure for small businesses and startups.
Investigation of the role of narratives and updates in CF campaigns: The paper highlights the importance of narratives and company updates in shaping investor behavior in CF campaigns. Further research could explore how companies can effectively use narratives and updates to attract more investors and increase the success of their campaigns. Research could also look at the effects of other factors on investor behavior, such as social proof (Bapna, 2019), reputation, and perceived trustworthiness, as well as different types of rewards and incentives, such as debt, equity, or product discounts. Furthermore, researchers could explore the possibility of using machine intelligence and machine learning algorithms to analyze and predict investor behavior in CF campaigns. This could help businesses tailor their narratives and updates to better appeal to investors and increase the likelihood of success.
Examination of the impact of institutional change on microfinance institutions: The study emphasizes the need for legislative frameworks and infrastructure that facilitate the expansion of microfinance institutions and advance financial inclusion. Future research could explore the impact of institutional change on the sustainability and success of microfinance institutions.
Study of the influence of contextual factors on CF campaigns: The analysis of the key-route main path reveals that CF has been studied in relation to various contextual factors, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, competition, Brexit, and policy responses. Researchers could investigate how these factors influence the success or failure of CF campaigns and their implications for startups and small businesses. Similarly, future studies could explore how CF can be used as a tool for economic development and job creation, particularly in underserved communities. This may involve investigating the role of CF in supporting minority-owned and women-owned businesses, as well as startups in rural areas.
5.2 Practical implications
This study reveals the applicability of CF to a wide diversity of real world situations. Understanding the diffusion of knowledge in the CF domain can assist practitioners in making well-informed decisions and developing tailored strategies to maximize the benefits of CF initiatives. One important practical implication is the role of CF in promoting sustainability, which can help businesses and entrepreneurs align their financial strategies with environmental and social goals. By leveraging CF platforms, organizations can demonstrate their commitment to sustainability, attract investors who share their values, and secure funding for initiatives that positively impact society and the environment. Another practical implication relates to the growing importance of equity CF as an alternative financing method for startups and small businesses. Entrepreneurs can capitalize on the insights derived from research on investor behavior, signaling, and information cascades to optimize their campaigns and increase their chances of securing funding. This includes effectively communicating the quality of their management teams, providing accurate financial projections, and maintaining regular communication with investors.
The focus on financial inclusion and microfinance in the CF research domain emphasizes the potential for CF to empower underrepresented and marginalized groups. As a result, managers and practitioners are advised to design CF platforms and campaigns that cater to the unique needs of these communities, fostering financial literacy, and supporting the growth of informal businesses in developing countries. This can contribute to poverty reduction and inclusive economic growth, particularly when combined with institutional change and supportive legislative frameworks. Finally, the examination of contextual factors such as the COVID-19 pandemic, Brexit, and policy response in CF research underscores the importance of adapting CF strategies to evolving market conditions and external influences. These understandings can aid practitioners in developing financing models that are more resistant and adaptable to economic crises while also capitalizing on emerging opportunities.
6. Conclusions and limitations
As an effective approach to raising funds for projects or ventures, CF has a garnered a lot of attention from academics and practitioners. Using a sample of 1,528 journal articles extracted from the Web of Science Core Collection database, this study employs quantitative techniques including co-word analysis and MPA to reveal the most important subjects and influential works that have significantly impacted CF evolution and knowledge diffusion over the last years. The co-word analysis shows that sustainability, entrepreneurial finance, and entrepreneurship are the primary focus of the CF field. The analysis of local main paths enables a comprehensive description of the CF domain, indicating the dominance of equity CF-related research in the CF domain. According to the global main path, the most important linkages in the evolution of CF are those connecting the works of Buttice and Vismara (2022), Kleinert and Mochkabadi (2022), and Allison et al. (2015). The knowledge dissemination structure in the CF domain is also depicted with the help of the key-route main path.
To the best of the authors' knowledge, this is the first study to combine co-word analysis and MPA to examine the knowledge diffusion trajectories of the full CF domain. By combining four distinct types of main paths, researchers are given a complete picture of CF research's dynamic growth over the last decade. This study offers fresh insights into the examination of the CF domain that differ from the standard review approach and bibliometrics. One positive aspect of this quantitative approach is its simplicity in identifying the most important contributions in the history of the CF domain and uncovering the knowledge diffusion paths comprehensively and intuitively. Additionally, several research directions are proposed based on the findings of the analysis, which will help researchers broaden the scope of their investigations.
While the results of this study are valuable, there are some limitations that should be noted. This study only employed the Web of Science Core Collection as its research sampling database, where only a fraction of all papers published on CF is represented. To bolster the findings, scholars could use Scopus to collect publications and replicate the analysis. Additionally, other publication types such as book chapters or conference proceedings might be included in the analysis. The MPA results are subject to change when additional studies are included. Moreover, this study has disregarded discrepancies between the importance of citing articles and cited articles by treating them as equally relevant, which they are not. Therefore, future studies are recommended to account for the relevance of papers within the citation network.
Figures
A summary of review studies in the CF field
| No. | Study | Scope | Time span | Number of reviewed papers | Review method | Contributions |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Mochkabadi and Volkmann (2020) | Equity CF | 2012–2017 | 113 | Systematic literature review |
|
| 2 | Shneor and Vik (2020) | CF success | 2010–2017 | 88 | Systematic literature review |
|
| 3 | Cai et al. (2021) | CF and social capital | 2010–2019 | 108 | Systematic literature review |
|
| 4 | Salido-Andres et al. (2021) | Donation CF for charitable causes | 2002–2017 | 92 | Systematic literature review |
|
| 5 | Wehnert and Beckmann (2021) | CF | 2013–2019 | 78 | Systematic literature review |
|
| 6 | Böckel et al. (2021) | CF and sustainability | 2011–2018 | 83 | Systematic literature review |
|
| 7 | Serwaah (2021) | CF and gender | 2011–2021 | 47 | Systematic literature review |
|
| ||||||
| 8 | Alegre and Moleskis (2021) | Donations and rewards | 2011–2017 | 63 | Systematic literature review |
|
| 9 | Camilleri and Bresciani (2022) | CF, small businesses, and startups | 2017–2021 | 72 | Systematic literature review |
|
| 10 | Chaudhary et al. (2022) | CF and new ventures | 2016–2022 | 58 | Systematic literature review |
|
| 11 | Mazzocchini and Lucarelli (2022) | Equity CF | 2015–2022 | 127 | Systematic literature review |
|
| 12 | Martínez-Climent et al. (2018) | Financial return CF | 1994–2017 | 148 | Bibliometric analysis |
|
| 13 | Butticè and Ughetto (2021) | CF | 2010–2018 | 213 | Bibliometric analysis |
|
| 14 | Rabbani et al. (2022) | CF and P2P lending | 2010–2021 | 1,742 | Bibliometric analysis |
|
| 15 | Baber and Fanea-Ivanovici (2022) | CF | 2006–2021 | 1,951 | Bibliometric analysis |
|
| 16 | Bargoni et al. (2022) | CF and innovation | 2010–2022 | 150 | Bibliometric analysis |
|
| 17 | Gil-Gomez et al. (2023) | CF | 1978–2018 | 521 | Bibliometric analysis |
|
| This study | CF | 1999–2022 | 1,528 | Bibliometric analysis |
|
Source(s): Authors own creation
Keyword clusters
| Cluster ID | Size | Silhouette | mean(Year) | Label (LSI) | High-frequency keywords |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 56 | 0.855 | 2015 | sustainability | microfinance institutions; sustainability; female empowerment; female entrepreneurship; developing country; Bangladesh; blockchain; efficiency; performance; Malaysia; data envelopment analysis; financial performance; Pakistan; governance |
| 1 | 48 | 0.740 | 2017 | entrepreneurial finance | reward-based CF; entrepreneurial finance; information asymmetry; gender; motivation; social network; initial coin offering; CF platform; regulation; e-commerce; signaling |
| 2 | 46 | 0.878 | 2016 | entrepreneurship | entrepreneurship; equity CF; startup; crowdsourcing; signal theory; entrepreneur; emerging market; fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis; new venture; network |
| 3 | 44 | 0.746 | 2018 | fintech | fintech; innovation; small and medium enterprises; venture capital; finance; China; bank; technology innovation; sustainable development; sharing economy |
| 4 | 38 | 0.901 | 2014 | social entrepreneurship | social entrepreneurship; bop; decision-making; social enterprise; corporate governance; microlending; social performance; charity |
| 5 | 32 | 0.871 | 2015 | social capital | social capital; kickstarter; financial inclusion; case study; business model; collective action; social media; donation |
| 6 | 29 | 0.851 | 2013 | microcredit | microcredit; corporate social responsibility; sustainable development goals; emerging economy; social venture; technology acceptance model; structural equation modeling; self-help group |
Source(s): Authors own creation
Search: (“crowdfund*” OR “crowd invest*” OR “online peer lend*” OR “crowdinvest*” OR “crowd fund*” OR “peer-to-peer (P2P) lending” OR “P2P lend*” OR “peer-to-peer lend*” OR “micro lend*” OR “microlend*” OR “micro-lend*” OR “microfinanc*”) (Topic) and English (Languages) and Article or Review Article (Document Types) and Retracted Publication or Data Paper or Proceeding Paper or Book Chapters (Exclude – Document Types) and Management or Business (Web of Science Categories).
References
Ab-Rahim, R. and Shah, S.-U.-M. (2019), “Does NGO microfinance alleviate poverty in Pakistan? A quasi-experimental approach”, International Journal of Business and Society, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 888-907.
Abdeldayem, M.M. and Al Dulaimi, S.H. (2022), “The dynamics of crowdfunding campaigns in the Middle East: does social capital matter?*”, Zbornik Radova Ekonomskog Fakulteta u Rijeci-Proceedings of Rijeka Faculty of Economics, Vol. 40 1, pp. 63-78, doi: 10.18045/zbefri.2022.1.63.
Agrawal, A., Catalini, C. and Goldfarb, A. (2015), “Crowdfunding: geography, social networks, and the timing of investment decisions”, Journal of Economics and Management Strategy, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 253-274, SI, doi: 10.1111/jems.12093.
Ahern, D. (2021), “Regulatory lag, regulatory friction and regulatory transition as FinTech disenablers: calibrating an EU response to the regulatory sandbox phenomenon”, European Business Organization Law Review, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 395-432, doi: 10.1007/s40804-021-00217-z.
Ahlers, G.K.C., Cumming, D., Guenther, C. and Schweizer, D. (2015), “Signaling in equity crowdfunding”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 39 No. 4, pp. 955-980, doi: 10.1111/etap.12157.
Akhter, P. (2018), “A study on the factors affecting the performance of microfinance institutions in Bangladesh”, Pacific Business Review International, Vol. 10 No. 11, pp. 124-132.
Al-Awlaqi, M.A. and Aamer, A.M. (2019), “Financial and social efficiency in the Yemen microfinance institutions A Hicks-Moorsteen TFP index analysis”, International Journal of Islamic and Middle Eastern Finance and Management, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 322-345, doi: 10.1108/IMEFM-10-2017-0276.
Alalwan, A.A., Baabdullah, A.M., Mahfod, J.O., Jones, P., Sharma, A. and Dwivedi, Y.K. (2022), “Entrepreneurial e-equity crowdfunding platforms: antecedents of knowledge acquisition and innovation performance”, European Journal of Innovation Management, Vol. ahead-of-print No. ahead-of-print, doi: 10.1108/EJIM-03-2022-0167.
Alegre, I. and Moleskis, M. (2021), “Beyond financial motivations in crowdfunding: a systematic literature review of donations and rewards”, VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, Vol. 32 No. 2, pp. 276-287, doi: 10.1007/s11266-019-00173-w.
Allied Market Research (2023), “Request sample - crowdfunding market by type (Reward-based crowdfunding, equity-based crowdfunding, debt-based crowdfunding, donation-based crowdfunding, others), by investment size (small and medium investment, large investment), by application (food and beverage, technology, media and entertainment, real estate, healthcare, others): global opportunity analysis and industry forecast, 2021-2031”, Allied Market Research, available at: https://www.alliedmarketresearch.com/request-sample/47861 (accessed 9 March 2023).
Allison, T.H., Davis, B.C., Short, J.C. and Webb, J.W. (2015), “Crowdfunding in a prosocial microlending environment: examining the role of intrinsic versus extrinsic cues”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 39 No. 1, pp. 53-73, SI, doi: 10.1111/etap.12108.
Alva, E., Vivas, V. and Urcia, M. (2021), “Entrepreneurial bricolage: crowdfunding for female entrepreneurs during COVID-19 pandemic”, Journal of Entrepreneurship in Emerging Economies, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 677-697, doi: 10.1108/JEEE-12-2020-0464.
Anglin, A.H., Courtney, C. and Allison, T.H. (2022), “Venturing for others, subject to role expectations? A role congruity theory approach to social venture crowd funding”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 46 No. 2, pp. 421-448, doi: 10.1177/10422587211024545.
Angulo-Ruiz, F., Pergelova, A. and Dana, L.P. (2020), “The internationalization of social hybrid firms”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 113, pp. 266-278, doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.10.017.
Arora, S.K., Li, Y., Youtie, J. and Shapira, P. (2020), “Measuring dynamic capabilities in new ventures: exploring strategic change in US green goods manufacturing using website data”, Journal of Technology Transfer, Vol. 45 No. 5, pp. 1451-1480, doi: 10.1007/s10961-019-09751-y.
Arroyo-Machado, W., Torres-Salinas, D., Herrera-Viedma, E. and Romero-Frías, E. (2020), “Science through Wikipedia: a novel representation of open knowledge through co-citation networks”, PLOS One, Public Library of Science, Vol. 15 No. 2, e0228713, doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0228713.
Atiase, V.Y., Mahmood, S. and Wang, Y. (2020), “Does institutional logic matter in microfinance delivery? An empirical study of microfinance clients”, International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior and Research, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 177-202, doi: 10.1108/IJEBR-10-2018-0713.
Au, C.H., Tan, B. and Sun, Y. (2020), “Developing a P2P lending platform: stages, strategies and platform configurations”, Internet Research, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 1229-1249, doi: 10.1108/INTR-03-2019-0099.
Ault, J.K. and Spicer, A. (2022), “The formal institutional context of informal entrepreneurship: a cross-national, configurational-based perspective”, Research Policy, Vol. 51 No. 9, 104160, doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2020.104160.
Baber, H. and Fanea-Ivanovici, M. (2022), “Fifteen years of crowdfunding – a bibliometric analysis”, Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, Routledge, Vol. 0 No. 0, pp. 1-15, doi: 10.1080/09537325.2022.2089548.
Bapna, S. (2019), “Complementarity of signals in early-stage equity investment decisions: evidence from a randomized field experiment”, Management Science, Vol. 65 No. 2, pp. 933-952, doi: 10.1287/mnsc.2017.2833.
Bapna, S. and Ganco, M. (2021), “Gender gaps in equity crowdfunding: evidence from a randomized field experiment”, Management Science, Vol. 67 No. 5, pp. 2679-2710, doi: 10.1287/mnsc.2020.3644.
Barbi, M., Febo, V. and Giudici, G. (2023), “Community-level social capital and investment decisions in equity crowdfunding”, Small Business Economics, pp. 1-36, doi: 10.1007/s11187-022-00724-4.
Bargoni, A., Ferraris, A., Bresciani, S. and Camilleri, M.A. (2022), “Crowdfunding and innovation: a bibliometric review and future research agenda”, European Journal of Innovation Management, Vol. ahead-of-print No. ahead-of-print, doi: 10.1108/EJIM-06-2022-0310.
Basha, S.A., Elgammal, M.M. and Abuzayed, B.M. (2021), “Online peer-to-peer lending: a review of the literature”, Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, Vol. 48, 101069, doi: 10.1016/j.elerap.2021.101069.
Batagelj, V. (2003), “Efficient algorithms for citation network analysis”, arXiv, Vol. 13 September, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.cs/0309023.
Battaglia, F., Busato, F. and Manganiello, M. (2022), “A cross-platform analysis of the equity crowdfunding Italian context: the role of intellectual capital”, Electronic Commerce Research, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 649-689, doi: 10.1007/s10660-020-09453-w.
Battisti, E., Graziano, E.A. and Christofi, M. (2022), “Equity crowdfunding platforms and social media: a Twitter analysis”, International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior and Research, Vol. 28 No. 5, pp. 1206-1221, SI, doi: 10.1108/IJEBR-01-2021-0081.
Baucus, M.S. and Mitteness, C.R. (2016), “Crowdfunding: avoiding Ponzi entrepreneurs when investing in new ventures”, Business Horizons, Vol. 59 No. 1, pp. 37-50, doi: 10.1016/j.bushor.2015.08.003.
Beisland, L.A., Djan, K.O., Mersland, R. and Randoy, T. (2021), “Measuring social performance in social enterprises: a global study of microfinance institutions”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 171 No. 1, pp. 51-71, doi: 10.1007/s10551-019-04417-z.
Bento, N., Gianfrate, G. and Groppo, S.V. (2019), “Do crowdfunding returns reward risk? Evidences from clean-tech projects”, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 141, pp. 107-116, doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2018.07.007.
Bhuiyan, M.F. and Ivlevs, A. (2019), “Micro-entrepreneurship and subjective well-being: evidence from rural Bangladesh”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 34 No. 4, pp. 625-645, SI, doi: 10.1016/j.jbusvent.2018.09.005.
Blaseg, D., Cumming, D. and Koetter, M. (2021), “Equity crowdfunding: high-quality or low-quality entrepreneurs?”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 45 No. 3, pp. 505-530, doi: 10.1177/1042258719899427.
Block, J., Hornuf, L. and Moritz, A. (2018), “Which updates during an equity crowdfunding campaign increase crowd participation?”, Small Business Economics, Vol. 50 No. 1, pp. 3-27, doi: 10.1007/s11187-017-9876-4.
Block, J.H., Groh, A., Hornuf, L., Vanacker, T. and Vismara, S. (2021), “The entrepreneurial finance markets of the future: a comparison of crowdfunding and initial coin offerings”, Small Business Economics, Vol. 57 No. 2, pp. 865-882, SI, doi: 10.1007/s11187-020-00330-2.
Böckel, A., Hörisch, J. and Tenner, I. (2021), “A systematic literature review of crowdfunding and sustainability: highlighting what really matters”, Management Review Quarterly, Vol. 71 No. 2, pp. 433-453, doi: 10.1007/s11301-020-00189-3.
Bogusz, C.I., Teigland, R. and Vaast, E. (2019), “Designed entrepreneurial legitimacy: the case of a Swedish crowdfunding platform”, European Journal of Information Systems, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 318-335, doi: 10.1080/0960085X.2018.1534039.
Bogusz, C.I., Laurell, C. and Sandstrom, C. (2020), “Tracking the digital evolution of entrepreneurial finance: the interplay between crowdfunding, blockchain technologies, cryptocurrencies, and initial coin offerings”, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, Vol. 67 No. 4, pp. 1099-1108, doi: 10.1109/TEM.2020.2984032.
Bongomin, G.O.C., Munene, J.C., Ntayi, J.M. and Malinga, C.A. (2019), “Collective action among rural poor Does it enhance financial intermediation by banks for financial inclusion in developing economies?”, International Journal of Bank Marketing, Vol. 37 No. 1, pp. 20-43, doi: 10.1108/IJBM-08-2017-0174.
Bongomin, G.O.C., Woldie, A. and Wakibi, A. (2020), “Microfinance accessibility, social cohesion and survival of women MSMEs in post-war communities in sub-Saharan Africa: lessons from Northern Uganda”, Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, Vol. 27 No. 5, pp. 749-774, doi: 10.1108/JSBED-12-2018-0383.
Brown, R., Mawson, S., Rowe, A. and Mason, C. (2018), “Working the crowd: improvisational entrepreneurship and equity crowdfunding in nascent entrepreneurial ventures”, International Small Business Journal-Researching Entrepreneurship, Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 169-193, doi: 10.1177/0266242617729743.
Bruton, G.D., Khavul, S. and Chavez, H. (2011), “Microlending in emerging economies: building a new line of inquiry from the ground up”, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 42 No. 5, pp. 718-739, SI, doi: 10.1057/jibs.2010.58.
Buerger, T. and Kleinert, S. (2021), “Crowdfunding cultural and commercial entrepreneurs: an empirical study on motivation in distinct backer communities”, Small Business Economics, Vol. 57 No. 2, pp. 667-683, SI, doi: 10.1007/s11187-020-00419-8.
Burtch, G., Ghose, A. and Wattal, S. (2013), “An empirical examination of the antecedents and consequences of contribution patterns in crowd-funded markets”, Information Systems Research, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 499-519, doi: 10.1287/isre.1120.0468.
Butticè, V. and Ughetto, E. (2021), “What, where, who, and how? A bibliometric study of crowdfunding research”, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, pp. 1-22, presented at the IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, Vol. 70 No. 9, doi: 10.1109/TEM.2020.3040902.
Buttice, V. and Useche, D. (2022), “Crowdfunding to overcome the immigrant entrepreneurs' liability of outsidership: the role of internal social capital”, Small Business Economics, Vol. 59 No. 4, pp. 1519-1540, doi: 10.1007/s11187-021-00591-5.
Buttice, V. and Vismara, S. (2022), “Inclusive digital finance: the industry of equity crowdfunding”, Journal of Technology Transfer, Vol. 47 No. 4, pp. 1224-1241, doi: 10.1007/s10961-021-09875-0.
Buttice, V., Colombo, M.G. and Wright, M. (2017), “Serial crowdfunding, social capital, and project success”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 41 No. 2, pp. 183-207, doi: 10.1111/etap.12271.
Buttice, V., Di Pietro, F. and Tenca, F. (2022), “They do not look alike: what kind of private investors do equity crowdfunded firms attract?”, Journal of Technology Transfer, Vol. 47 No. 6, pp. 1707-1736, SI, doi: 10.1007/s10961-021-09895-w.
Cai, W., Polzin, F. and Stam, E. (2021), “Crowdfunding and social capital: a systematic review using a dynamic perspective”, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 162, 120412, doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2020.120412.
Camilleri, M.A. and Bresciani, S. (2022), “Crowdfunding small businesses and startups: a systematic review, an appraisal of theoretical insights and future research directions”, European Journal of Innovation Management, Vol. ahead-of-print No. ahead-of-print, doi: 10.1108/EJIM-02-2022-0060.
Cappa, F., Pinelli, M., Maiolini, R. and Leone, M.I. (2021), “‘Pledge’ me your ears! The role of narratives and narrator experience in explaining crowdfunding success”, Small Business Economics, Vol. 57 No. 2, pp. 953-973, SI, doi: 10.1007/s11187-020-00334-y.
Carley, K.M., Hummon, N.P. and Harty, M. (1993), “Scientific influence: an analysis of the main path structure in the journal of conflict resolution”, Knowledge, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 417-447, SAGE Publications, doi: 10.1177/107554709301400406.
Cerpentier, M., Vanacker, T., Paeleman, I. and Bringmann, K. (2022), “Equity crowdfunding, market timing, and firm capital structure”, Journal of Technology Transfer, Vol. 47 No. 6, pp. 1766-1793, SI, doi: 10.1007/s10961-021-09893-y.
Chandna, V. (2022), “Social entrepreneurship and digital platforms: crowdfunding in the sharing-economy era”, Business Horizons, Vol. 65 No. 1, pp. 21-31, doi: 10.1016/j.bushor.2021.09.005.
Chaudhary, S., Dhir, A., Battisti, E. and Kliestik, T. (2022), “Mapping the field of crowdfunding and new ventures: a systematic literature review”, European Journal of Innovation Management, Vol. ahead-of-print No. ahead-of-print, doi: 10.1108/EJIM-05-2022-0241.
Chauhan, S. (2021), “Social and financial efficiency: a study of Indian microfinance institutions”, IIM Kozhikode Society and Management Review, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 31-43, doi: 10.1177/2277975220953311.
Chen, C. (2006), “CiteSpace II: detecting and visualizing emerging trends and transient patterns in scientific literature”, Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Vol. 57 No. 3, pp. 359-377, doi: 10.1002/asi.20317.
Chen, W.D. (2023), “Crowdfunding: different types of legitimacy”, Small Business Economics, Vol. 60 No. 1, pp. 245-263, doi: 10.1007/s11187-022-00647-0.
Chen, W. and Yuan, X. (2021), “Financial inclusion in China: an overview”, Frontiers of Business Research in China, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 1-21, doi: 10.1186/s11782-021-00098-6.
Chen, S., Thomas, S. and Kohli, C. (2016), “What really makes a promotional campaign succeed on a crowdfunding platform? Guilt, utilitarian products, emotional messaging, and fewer but meaningful rewards, drive donations”, Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 56 No. 1, pp. 81-94, doi: 10.2501/JAR-2016-002.
Chen, K., Zhang, Y. and Fu, X. (2019), “International research collaboration: an emerging domain of innovation studies?”, Research Policy, Vol. 48 No. 1, pp. 149-168, doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2018.08.005.
Cholakova, M. and Clarysse, B. (2015), “Does the possibility to make equity investments in crowdfunding projects crowd out reward-based investments?”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 39 No. 1, pp. 145-172, SI, doi: 10.1111/etap.12139.
Claus, T., Niemand, T., Kraus, S., Schnetzer, P. and Brem, A. (2020), “Increasing crowdfunding success through social media: the importance of reach and utilisation in reward-based crowdfunding”, International Journal of Innovation Management, Vol. 24 No. 3, 2050026, doi: 10.1142/S1363919620500267.
Coakley, J., Lazos, A. and Linares-Zegarra, J. (2022), “Strategic entrepreneurial choice between competing crowdfunding platforms”, Journal of Technology Transfer, Vol. 47 No. 6, pp. 1794-1824, SI, doi: 10.1007/s10961-021-09891-0.
Colombo, M.G., Montanaro, B. and Vismara, S. (2023), “What drives the valuation of entrepreneurial ventures? A map to navigate the literature and research directions”, Small Business Economics, Vol. 61 No. 59–84, pp. 1-26, doi: 10.1007/s11187-022-00688-5.
Courtney, C., Dutta, S. and Li, Y. (2017), “Resolving information asymmetry: signaling, endorsement, and crowdfunding success”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 41 No. 2, pp. 265-290, doi: 10.1111/etap.12267.
Cumming, D. and Reardon, R.S. (2022), “COVID-19 and entrepreneurial processes in US equity crowdfunding”, Journal of Small Business Management, Vol. 0 No. 0, pp. 1-24, Routledge, doi: 10.1080/00472778.2022.2051178.
Cumming, D., Meoli, M. and Vismara, S. (2019), “Investors' choices between cash and voting rights: evidence from dual-class equity crowdfunding”, Research Policy, Vol. 48 No. 8, SI, doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2019.01.014.
Cumming, D.J., Martinez-Salgueiro, A., Reardon, R.S. and Sewaid, A. (2022), “COVID-19 bust, policy response, and rebound: equity crowdfunding and P2P versus banks”, Journal of Technology Transfer, Vol. 47 No. 6, pp. 1825-1846, SI, doi: 10.1007/s10961-021-09899-6.
Cummings, M.E., Rawhouse, H., Vismara, S. and Hamilton, E.L. (2020), “An equity crowdfunding research agenda: evidence from stakeholder participation in the rulemaking process”, Small Business Economics, Vol. 54 No. 4, pp. 907-932, doi: 10.1007/s11187-018-00134-5.
Darmansyah, Fianto, B.A., Hendratmi, A. and Aziz, P.F. (2021), “Factors determining behavioral intentions to use Islamic financial technology Three competing models”, Journal of Islamic Marketing, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 794-812, doi: 10.1108/JIMA-12-2019-0252.
De Crescenzo, V., Enrique Ribeiro-Soriano, D. and Covin, J.G. (2020), “Exploring the viability of equity crowdfunding as a fundraising instrument: a configurational analysis of contingency factors that lead to crowdfunding success and failure”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 115, pp. 348-356, doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.09.051.
Do, T.T.H., Nguyen, T.L.A. and Nguyen, T.H.P. (2022), “Impacts of climate change and financial support on household livelihoods: evidence from the northwest sub-region of vietnam”, Journal of Asian Finance Economics and Business, Vol. 9 No. 6, pp. 115-126, doi: 10.13106/jafeb.2022.vol9.no6.0115.
Dospinescu, O., Dospinescu, N. and Agheorghiesei, D.-T. (2021), “Fintech services and factors determining the expected benefits of users: evidence in Romania for millennials and generation Z”, E&M Economics and Management, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 101-118, doi: 10.15240/tul/001/2021-2-007.
Drover, W., Busenitz, L., Matusik, S., Townsend, D., Anglin, A. and Dushnitsky, G. (2017), “A review and road map of entrepreneurial equity financing research: venture capital, corporate venture capital, angel investment, crowdfunding, and accelerators”, Journal of Management, Vol. 43 No. 6, pp. 1820-1853, doi: 10.1177/0149206317690584.
Elliot, E.A., Ngugi, B. and Malgwi, C.A. (2018), “Mitigating microfinance marketing channels inefficiencies with customerization of mobile technology”, International Marketing Review, Vol. 35 No. 4, pp. 619-636, SI, doi: 10.1108/IMR-11-2015-0256.
Ernesto Amoros, J., Ciravegna, L., Mandakovic, V. and Stenholm, P. (2019), “Necessity or opportunity? The effects of state fragility and economic development on entrepreneurial efforts”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 43 No. 4, pp. 725-750, doi: 10.1177/1042258717736857.
Estrin, S., Gozman, D. and Khavul, S. (2018), “The evolution and adoption of equity crowdfunding: entrepreneur and investor entry into a new market”, Small Business Economics, Vol. 51 No. 2, pp. 425-439, SI, doi: 10.1007/s11187-018-0009-5.
Felips, I.J., dos, S., Mendes-Da-Silva, W., Leal, C.C. and Santos, D.B. (2022), “Reward crowdfunding campaigns: time-to-success analysis”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 138, pp. 214-228, doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.09.004.
Fraser, S. (2019), “Entrepreneurial borrowing: do entrepreneurs seek and receive enough credit?”, Foundations and Trends in Entrepreneurship, Vol. 15 Nos 5-6, pp. 431-663, doi: 10.1561/0300000076.
Fu, H., Wang, M., Li, P., Jiang, S., Hu, W., Guo, X. and Cao, M. (2019), “Tracing knowledge development trajectories of the internet of things domain: a main path analysis”, IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics, Vol. 15 No. 12, pp. 6531-6540, presented at the IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics, doi: 10.1109/TII.2019.2929414.
Gal-Or, E., Gal-Or, R. and Penmetsa, N. (2019), “Can platform competition support market segmentation? Network externalities versus matching efficiency in equity crowdfunding markets”, Journal of Economics and Management Strategy, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 420-435, doi: 10.1111/jems.12286.
Galak, J., Small, D. and Stephen, A.T. (2011), “Microfinance decision making: a field study of prosocial lending”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 48 SI, pp. S130-S137, doi: 10.1509/jmkr.48.SPL.S130.
Gama, A.P.M., Correia, R.E., Augusto, M. and Duarte, F. (2023), “Third-party signals in crowdfunded microfinance: which microfinance institutions boost crowdfunding among refugee entrepreneurs?”, Small Business Economics, pp. 1-28, doi: 10.1007/s11187-022-00708-4.
Gil-Gomez, H., Oltra-Badenes, R., Guerola-Navarro, V. and Zegarra Saldaña, P. (2023), “Crowdfunding: a bibliometric analysis”, International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 27-45, doi: 10.1007/s11365-021-00784-0.
Groza, M.P., Groza, M.D. and Miguel Barral, L. (2020), “Women backing women: the role of crowdfunding in empowering female consumer-investors and entrepreneurs”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 117, pp. 432-442, doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.06.013.
Gupta, N. and Mirchandani, A. (2020), “Corporate governance and performance of microfinance institutions: recent global evidences”, Journal of Management and Governance, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 307-326, SI, doi: 10.1007/s10997-018-9446-4.
Herzenstein, M., Dholakia, U.M. and Andrews, R.L. (2011a), “Strategic herding behavior in peer-to-peer loan auctions”, Journal of Interactive Marketing, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 27-36, doi: 10.1016/j.intmar.2010.07.001.
Herzenstein, M., Sonenshein, S. and Dholakia, U.M. (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, Vol. 48 SI, pp. S138-S149, doi: 10.1509/jmkr.48.SPL.S138.
Hoos, F. (2022), “Showing off or showing impact? The joint signalling effect of reputation and accountability on social entrepreneurs' crowdfunding success”, Management Accounting Research, Vol. 54, doi: 10.1016/j.mar.2021.100778.
Hornuf, L. and Schwienbacher, A. (2018), “Internet-based entrepreneurial finance: lessons from Germany”, California Management Review, Vol. 60 No. 2, pp. 150-175, doi: 10.1177/0008125617741126.
Hornuf, L., Schmitt, M. and Stenzhorn, E. (2018), “Equity crowdfunding in Germany and the United Kingdom: follow-up funding and firm failure”, Corporate Governance-An International Review, Vol. 26 No. 5, pp. 331-354, SI, doi: 10.1111/corg.12260.
Huang, Z., Chiu, C.L., Mo, S. and Marjerison, R. (2018), “The nature of crowdfunding in China: initial evidence”, Asia Pacific Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 300-322, doi: 10.1108/APJIE-08-2018-0046.
Hummon, N.P. and Carley, K. (1993), “Social networks as normal science”, Social Networks, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 71-106, doi: 10.1016/0378-8733(93)90022-D.
Hummon, N.P. and Dereian, P. (1989), “Connectivity in a citation network: the development of DNA theory”, Social Networks, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 39-63, doi: 10.1016/0378-8733(89)90017-8.
Jebarajakirthy, C. and Lobo, A. (2015), “A study investigating attitudinal perceptions of microcredit services and their relevant drivers in bottom of pyramid market segments”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 23, pp. 39-48, doi: 10.1016/j.jretconser.2014.12.005.
Keliuotyte-Staniuleniene, G. and Kukarenalte, M. (2020), “Financial innovation management: loan price in the crowdfunding and peer-to-peer lending platforms”, Marketing and Management of Innovations, Vol. 2, pp. 256-274, doi: 10.21272/mmi.2020.2-19.
Khavul, S. (2010), “Microfinance: creating opportunities for the poor?”, Academy of Management Perspectives, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 58-72, doi: 10.5465/AMP.2010.52842951.
Khavul, S., Bruton, G.D. and Wood, E. (2009), “Informal family business in Africa”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 33 No. 6, pp. 1219-1238, doi: 10.1111/j.1540-6520.2009.00342.x.
Khavul, S., Chavez, H. and Bruton, G.D. (2013), “When institutional change outruns the change agent: the contested terrain of entrepreneurial microfinance for those in poverty”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 30-50, SI, doi: 10.1016/j.jbusvent.2012.02.005.
Kirby, E. and Worner, S. (2014), “Crowd-funding: an infant industry growing fast”, IOSCO Research Department, Vol. 2014, pp. 1-63.
Kleinert, S. and Mochkabadi, K. (2022), “Gender stereotypes in equity crowdfunding: the effect of gender bias on the interpretation of quality signals”, Journal of Technology Transfer, Vol. 47 No. 6, pp. 1640-1661, SI, doi: 10.1007/s10961-021-09892-z.
Li, M. and Chu, Y. (2017), “Explore the research front of a specific research theme based on a novel technique of enhanced co-word analysis”, Journal of Information Science, Vol. 43 No. 6, pp. 725-741, SAGE Publications, doi: 10.1177/0165551516661914.
Li, X., Yuan, J., Shi, Y., Sun, Z. and Ruan, J. (2020a), “Emerging trends and innovation modes of internet finance—results from Co-word and Co-citation networks”, Future Internet, Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute, Vol. 12 No. 3, p. 52, doi: 10.3390/fi12030052.
Li, Y., Yang, Y., Li, G. and Zhao, X. (2020b), “Study on sustainable development of microfinance institutions from the perspective of inclusive finance-based on MFI data in countries along the belt and road”, Emerging Markets Finance and Trade, Vol. 56 No. 13, pp. 3205-3216, doi: 10.1080/1540496X.2019.1684893.
Li, Y., Ling, L., Zhang, D. and Wu, J. (2021), “Lead investors and information disclosure: a test of signaling theory by fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis approach”, Managerial and Decision Economics, Vol. 42 No. 4, pp. 836-849, doi: 10.1002/mde.3276.
Li, Y., Li, M. and Sang, P. (2022), “A bibliometric review of studies on construction and demolition waste management by using CiteSpace”, Energy and Buildings, Vol. 258, 111822, doi: 10.1016/j.enbuild.2021.111822.
Liu, J.S. and Lu, L.Y.Y. (2012), “An integrated approach for main path analysis: development of the Hirsch index as an example”, Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Vol. 63 No. 3, pp. 528-542, doi: 10.1002/asi.21692.
Liu, G.-Y., Hu, J.-M. and Wang, H.-L. (2011), “A co-word analysis of digital library field in China”, Scientometrics, Akadémiai Kiadó, co-published with Springer Science+Business Media B.V, Formerly Kluwer Academic Publishers B.V., Vol. 91 No. 1, pp. 203-217, doi: 10.1007/s11192-011-0586-4.
Liu, Z., Yin, Y., Liu, W. and Dunford, M. (2015), “Visualizing the intellectual structure and evolution of innovation systems research: a bibliometric analysis”, Scientometrics, Vol. 103 No. 1, pp. 135-158, doi: 10.1007/s11192-014-1517-y.
Liu, T., Gong, X., Liu, Z. and Ma, C. (2023), “Direct and configurational paths of capital signals to technology crowdfunding fundraising”, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, Vol. 70 No. 9, doi: 10.1109/TEM.2021.3068524.
Luo, X., Ge, L., Wang, C. and Alex, ). (2022), “Crowdfunding for microfinance institutions: the new hope?”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 46 No. 1, pp. 373-400, doi: 10.25300/MISQ/2022/15406.
Mair, J. and Martí, I. (2006), “Social entrepreneurship research: a source of explanation, prediction, and delight”, Journal of World Business, Vol. 41 No. 1, pp. 36-44, doi: 10.1016/j.jwb.2005.09.002.
Marakkath, N. and Attuel-mendes, L. (2015), “Can microfinance crowdfunding reduce financial exclusion? Regulatory issues”, International Journal of Bank Marketing, Vol. 33 No. 5, pp. 624-636, SI, doi: 10.1108/IJBM-06-2014-0080.
Mariyono, J. (2019), “Micro-credit as catalyst for improving rural livelihoods through agribusiness sector in Indonesia”, Journal of Entrepreneurship in Emerging Economies, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 98-121, doi: 10.1108/JEEE-06-2017-0046.
Martínez-Climent, C., Zorio-Grima, A. and Ribeiro-Soriano, D. (2018), “Financial return crowdfunding: literature review and bibliometric analysis”, International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 527-553, doi: 10.1007/s11365-018-0511-x.
Mastrangelo, L., Cruz-Ros, S. and Miquel-Romero, M.-J. (2020), “Crowdfunding success: the role of co-creation, feedback, and corporate social responsibility”, International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior and Research, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 449-466, doi: 10.1108/IJEBR-06-2019-0391.
Mazzocchini, F.J. and Lucarelli, C. (2022), “Success or failure in equity crowdfunding? A systematic literature review and research perspectives”, Management Research Review, Vol. 46 No. 6, pp. 790-831, doi: 10.1108/MRR-09-2021-0672.
McKenny, A.F., Allison, T.H., Ketchen, D.J., Short, J.C. and Ireland, R.D. (2017), “How should crowdfunding research evolve? A survey of the entrepreneurship theory and practice editorial board”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 41 No. 2, pp. 291-304, doi: 10.1111/etap.12269.
Meoli, M., Rossi, A. and Vismara, S. (2022), “Financial literacy and security-based crowdfunding”, Corporate Governance-An International Review, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 27-54, doi: 10.1111/corg.12355.
Mochkabadi, K. and Volkmann, C.K. (2020), “Equity crowdfunding: a systematic review of the literature”, Small Business Economics, Vol. 54 No. 1, pp. 75-118, doi: 10.1007/s11187-018-0081-x.
Moser, R.M.B. and Gonzalez, L. (2015), “Microfinance and climate change impacts: the case of agroamigo in Brazil”, RAE-Revista de Administracao de Empresas, Vol. 55 No. 4, pp. 397-407, doi: 10.1590/S0034-759020150404.
Mostafa, M.M. (2020), “A knowledge domain visualization review of thirty years of halal food research: themes, trends and knowledge structure”, Trends in Food Science and Technology, Vol. 99, pp. 660-677, doi: 10.1016/j.tifs.2020.03.022.
Motylska-Kuzma, A. (2018), “Crowdfunding and sustainable development”, Sustainability, Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute, Vol. 10 No. 12, p. 4650, doi: 10.3390/su10124650.
Murray, A. and Fisher, G. (2023), “When more is less: explaining the curse of too much capital for early-stage ventures”, Organization Science, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 246-282, doi: 10.1287/orsc.2021.1568.
Nguyen, L.T.Q., Hoang, T.G., Do, L.H., Ngo, X.T., Nguyen, P.H.T., Nguyen, G.D.L. and Nguyen, G.N.T. (2021), “The role of blockchain technology-based social crowdfunding in advancing social value creation”, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 170, doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2021.120898.
Ordanini, A., Miceli, L., Pizzetti, M. and Parasuraman, A. (2011), “Crowd-funding: transforming customers into investors through innovative service platforms”, Journal of Service Management, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 443-470, doi: 10.1108/09564231111155079.
Ouyang, W., Wang, Y., Lin, C., He, M., Hao, F., Liu, H. and Zhu, W. (2018), “Heavy metal loss from agricultural watershed to aquatic system: a scientometrics review”, Science of the Total Environment, Vol. 637 No. 638, pp. 208-220, doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.04.434.
Pierrakis, Y. (2019), “Peer-to-peer lending to businesses: investors' characteristics, investment criteria and motivation”, International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 239-251, SI, doi: 10.1177/1465750319842528.
Rabbani, M.R., Bashar, A., Hawaldar, I.T., Shaik, M. and Selim, M. (2022), “What do we know about crowdfunding and P2P lending research? A bibliometric review and meta-analysis”, Journal of Risk and Financial Management, Vol. 15 No. 10, p. 451, Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing, doi: 10.3390/jrfm15100451.
Rejeb, A., Simske, S., Rejeb, K., Treiblmaier, H. and Zailani, S. (2020), “Internet of Things research in supply chain management and logistics: a bibliometric analysis”, Internet of Things, Vol. 12, 100318, doi: 10.1016/j.iot.2020.100318.
Rejeb, A., Rejeb, K., Appolloni, A., Iranmanesh, M., Treiblmaier, H. and Jagtap, S. (2022a), “Exploring food supply chain trends in the COVID-19 era: a bibliometric review”, Sustainability, Vol. 14 No. 19, 12437, doi: 10.3390/su141912437.
Rejeb, A., Rejeb, K., Zailani, S. and Kayikci, Y. (2022b), “Knowledge diffusion of halal food research: a main path analysis”, Journal of Islamic Marketing, Vol. 14 No. 7, pp. 1715-1743, doi: 10.1108/JIMA-07-2021-0229.
Rejeb, A., Suhaiza, Z., Rejeb, K., Seuring, S. and Treiblmaier, H. (2022d), “The Internet of Things and the circular economy: a systematic literature review and research agenda”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 350, 131439, doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.131439.
Rejeb, A., Rejeb, K., Appolloni, A., Treiblmaier, H. and Iranmanesh, M. (2023), “Circular economy research in the COVID-19 era: a review and the road ahead”, Circular Economy and Sustainability, pp. 1-31, doi: 10.1007/s43615-023-00265-2.
Ryu, S. and Kim, Y.-G. (2016), “A typology of crowdfunding sponsors: birds of a feather flock together?”, Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, Vol. 16, pp. 43-54, doi: 10.1016/j.elerap.2016.01.006.
Salido-Andres, N., Rey-Garcia, M., Alvarez-Gonzalez, L.I. and Vazquez-Casielles, R. (2021), “Mapping the field of donation-based crowdfunding for charitable causes: systematic review and conceptual framework”, VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, Vol. 32 No. 2, pp. 288-302, doi: 10.1007/s11266-020-00213-w.
Selvaraj, T., Karim, Z.A., Abdul-Rahman, A. and Chamhuri, N. (2019), “Microcredit coverage in Malaysian macroeconomic context: an evidence using panel data analysis”, International Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 53-76.
Serwaah, P. (2021), “Crowdfunding, gender and the promise of financial democracy: a systematic review”, International Journal of Gender and Entrepreneurship, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 263-283, Emerald Publishing, doi: 10.1108/IJGE-07-2021-0115.
Shen, C. and Ho, J. (2020), “Technology-enhanced learning in higher education: a bibliometric analysis with latent semantic approach”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 104, 106177, doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2019.106177.
Shneor, R. and Vik, A.A. (2020), “Crowdfunding success: a systematic literature review 2010-2017”, Baltic Journal of Management, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 149-182, Emerald Publishing, doi: 10.1108/BJM-04-2019-0148.
Siddhartha, T., Nambirajan, T. and Ganeshkumar, C. (2022), “Self-help group (SHG) production methods: insights from the union territory of Puducherry community”, Journal of Enterprising Communities-People and Places in the Global Economy, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 517-539, doi: 10.1108/JEC-01-2021-0005.
Siering, M., Koch, J.-A. and Deokar, A.V. (2016), “Detecting fraudulent behavior on crowdfunding platforms: the role of linguistic and content-based cues in static and dynamic contexts”, Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 421-455, SI, doi: 10.1080/07421222.2016.1205930.
Sierra, J. and Rodriguez-Conde, M.-J. (2021), “The Microfinance Game: experiencing the dynamics of financial inclusion in developing contexts”, International Journal of Management Education, Vol. 19, p. 3, doi: 10.1016/j.ijme.2021.100540.
Skirnevskiy, V., Bendig, D. and Brettel, M. (2017), “The influence of internal social capital on serial creators' success in crowdfunding”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 41 No. 2, pp. 209-236, doi: 10.1111/etap.12272.
St John, J., St John, K. and Han, B. (2022), “Entrepreneurial crowdfunding backer motivations: a latent Dirichlet allocation approach”, European Journal of Innovation Management, Vol. 25 No. 6, pp. 223-241, doi: 10.1108/EJIM-05-2021-0248.
Statista (2023), “Global crowdfunding market size 2021”, Statista, available at: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1078273/global-crowdfunding-market-size/ (accessed 9 March 2023).
Testa, S., Atawna, T., Baldi, G. and Cincotti, S. (2022), “The innovation potential of Islamic crowdfunding platforms in contributing to sustainable development”, European Journal of Innovation Management, Vol. 25 No. 6, pp. 1008-1035, doi: 10.1108/EJIM-11-2021-0547.
Thies, F., Huber, A., Bock, C., Benlian, A. and Kraus, S. (2019), “Following the crowd-does crowdfunding affect venture capitalists' selection of entrepreneurial ventures?”, Journal of Small Business Management, Vol. 57 No. 4, pp. 1378-1398, doi: 10.1111/jsbm.12447.
Vismara, S. (2016), “Equity retention and social network theory in equity crowdfunding”, Small Business Economics, Vol. 46 No. 4, pp. 579-590, SI, doi: 10.1007/s11187-016-9710-4.
Vismara, S. (2018), “Information cascades among investors in equity crowdfunding”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 42 No. 3, pp. 467-497, doi: 10.1111/etap.12261.
Vismara, S. (2019), “Sustainability in equity crowdfunding”, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 141, pp. 98-106, doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2018.07.014.
Vu, A.N. and Christian, J. (2023), “UK equity crowdfunding success: the impact of competition, Brexit and covid-19”, British Journal of Management, doi: 10.1111/1467-8551.12714.
Walthoff-Borm, X., Schwienbacher, A. and Vanacker, T. (2018a), “Equity crowdfunding: first resort or last resort?”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 33 No. 4, pp. 513-533, doi: 10.1016/j.jbusvent.2018.04.001.
Walthoff-Borm, X., Vanacker, T. and Collewaert, V. (2018b), “Equity crowdfunding, shareholder structures, and firm performance”, Corporate Governance-An International Review, Vol. 26 No. 5, pp. 314-330, SI, doi: 10.1111/corg.12259.
Weber, C.E.E., Steigenberger, N. and Wilhelm, H. (2023), “After successful fundraising: how overfunding and category spanning affect the release and audience-perceived quality of crowdfunded products”, Small Business Economics, pp. 1-18, doi: 10.1007/s11187-022-00721-7.
Wehnert, P. and Beckmann, M. (2021), “Crowdfunding for a sustainable future: a systematic literature review”, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, pp. 1-16, presented at the IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, Vol. 70 No. 9, doi: 10.1109/TEM.2021.3066305.
Xiao, Y., Lu, L.Y.Y., Liu, J.S. and Zhou, Z. (2014), “Knowledge diffusion path analysis of data quality literature: a main path analysis”, Journal of Informetrics, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 594-605, doi: 10.1016/j.joi.2014.05.001.
Xie, K., Liu, Z., Chen, L., Zhang, W., Liu, S. and Chaudhry, S.S. (2019), “Success factors and complex dynamics of crowdfunding: an empirical research on Taobao platform in China”, Electronic Markets, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 187-199, doi: 10.1007/s12525-018-0305-6.
Yasar, B., Yilmaz, I.S., Hatipoglu, N. and Salih, A. (2022), “Stretching the success in reward-based crowdfunding”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 152, pp. 205-220, doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.07.053.
Yu, D. and Sheng, L. (2020), “Knowledge diffusion paths of blockchain domain: the main path analysis”, Scientometrics, Vol. 125 No. 1, pp. 471-497, doi: 10.1007/s11192-020-03650-y.
Yu, D. and Sheng, L. (2021), “Exploring the knowledge development trajectories of the supply chain finance domain: a main path analysis”, The International Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 32 No. 4, pp. 1315-1333, Emerald Publishing, doi: 10.1108/IJLM-05-2020-0207.
Zhang, J. and Liu, P. (2012), “Rational herding in microloan markets”, Management Science, Vol. 58 No. 5, pp. 892-912, doi: 10.1287/mnsc.1110.1459.
Zupic, I. and Čater, T. (2015), “Bibliometric methods in management and organization”, Organizational Research Methods, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 429-472, SAGE Publications, doi: 10.1177/1094428114562629.
Further reading
Rejeb, A., Rejeb, K., Zailani, S.H.M. and Abdollahi, A. (2022c), “Knowledge diffusion of the internet of things (IoT): a main path analysis”, Wireless Personal Communications, Vol. 126 No. 2, pp. 1177-1207, doi: 10.1007/s11277-022-09787-8.