4.3 Article

Neo-colonial credit: FinTech platforms in Africa

期刊

JOURNAL OF CULTURAL ECONOMY
卷 15, 期 4, 页码 401-415

出版社

ROUTLEDGE JOURNALS, TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/17530350.2022.2028652

关键词

Fintech; platforms; neo-colonialism; credit-debt relations; Africa

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper contributes to social science research into FinTech in Africa in three ways: firstly, by exploring how FinTech providers offer short-term credit products through mobile wallets; secondly, by highlighting the platformization processes of Africa's FinTech economy; thirdly, by analyzing the historical and geographical conditions of racialized marginalization and arguing that FinTech is reshaping colonial relations.
This paper makes a three-fold contribution to social science research into FinTech in Africa. First, we build on existing research into mobile payments to show how FinTech providers offer unsecured short-term credit products via mobile wallets. Second, we stress how the expansion of Africa's FinTech economy is constituted through the distinctive platformization processes of platform capitalism. Third, we develop current work that highlights how the growth of FinTech in Africa rests on historically specific and geographically uneven conditions of racialized marginalization rooted in colonial legacies, and argue that FinTech is renewing and recasting colonial relations in the present. We show how FinTech platforms are assembled through neo-colonial corporate telecommunication, digital and data infrastructures that enrol differentiated populations previously excluded from formal financial relations under colonial regimes. Platforms are also revealed to extol a version of the modernizing and civilizing mission of the enlightened empowerment of individuals whilst simultaneously extracting rents through racialized expropriations. Illustration is provided throughout by in-depth case analysis of JUMO, a Cape Town-based FinTech firm that currently operates across six African countries.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据