肯尼亚的亲社会众筹

Alberto Ibarra, Natàlia Cugueró-Escofet, M. Canela
{"title":"肯尼亚的亲社会众筹","authors":"Alberto Ibarra, Natàlia Cugueró-Escofet, M. Canela","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2969750","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The crowdfunding industry has emerged in the past few years as one of the most promising alternative financing options. Lending and donating operations accounted for 81% of the crowdfunding industry's $34.4 billion total funding volume in 2015. Kiva Zip, a prosocial program, created an online platform that provides 0% interest peer-to-peer loans and has features in common with lending and donating crowdfunding platforms. This program is a spin-off of Kiva.org. Although both platforms have a similar objective and modus operandi, they differ primarily because Kiva.org has a figure called a field partner, who is the intermediary between borrowers and lenders, while Kiva Zip has no field partners but does have so-called trustees, who provide support to borrowers but do not act as intermediaries for resources or charge for their services. The authors thoroughly analyzed Kiva Zip's operations in Kenya for the years from 2011 to 2015. Kiva Zip has stopped posting new campaigns in Kenya but has continued to collect payment for previously delivered loans. We studied in detail the impact that lenders, borrowers and trustees had on the platform's performance. In addition, we analyzed the different stages of a campaign on Kiva Zip: when a campaign is posted, when it is funded and when the loan is paid back. This analysis may provide insight into the levers that drove the performance of Kiva Zip in Kenya, which in turn could have enabled the organization to identify areas for improvement in order to continue operating in the country. In addition, we have identified relevant theoretical frameworks for analyzing prosocial crowdlending in greater depth.","PeriodicalId":11881,"journal":{"name":"Entrepreneurship & Finance eJournal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-04-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Prosocial Crowdlending in Kenya\",\"authors\":\"Alberto Ibarra, Natàlia Cugueró-Escofet, M. Canela\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/SSRN.2969750\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The crowdfunding industry has emerged in the past few years as one of the most promising alternative financing options. Lending and donating operations accounted for 81% of the crowdfunding industry's $34.4 billion total funding volume in 2015. Kiva Zip, a prosocial program, created an online platform that provides 0% interest peer-to-peer loans and has features in common with lending and donating crowdfunding platforms. This program is a spin-off of Kiva.org. Although both platforms have a similar objective and modus operandi, they differ primarily because Kiva.org has a figure called a field partner, who is the intermediary between borrowers and lenders, while Kiva Zip has no field partners but does have so-called trustees, who provide support to borrowers but do not act as intermediaries for resources or charge for their services. The authors thoroughly analyzed Kiva Zip's operations in Kenya for the years from 2011 to 2015. Kiva Zip has stopped posting new campaigns in Kenya but has continued to collect payment for previously delivered loans. We studied in detail the impact that lenders, borrowers and trustees had on the platform's performance. In addition, we analyzed the different stages of a campaign on Kiva Zip: when a campaign is posted, when it is funded and when the loan is paid back. This analysis may provide insight into the levers that drove the performance of Kiva Zip in Kenya, which in turn could have enabled the organization to identify areas for improvement in order to continue operating in the country. In addition, we have identified relevant theoretical frameworks for analyzing prosocial crowdlending in greater depth.\",\"PeriodicalId\":11881,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Entrepreneurship & Finance eJournal\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2017-04-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Entrepreneurship & Finance eJournal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2969750\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Entrepreneurship & Finance eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2969750","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在过去的几年里,众筹行业已经成为最有前途的融资选择之一。2015年,众筹行业344亿美元的总融资额中,借贷和捐赠业务占81%。Kiva Zip是一个亲社会项目,它创建了一个在线平台,提供0%利息的点对点贷款,与借贷和捐赠众筹平台有一些共同之处。这个项目是从Kiva.org衍生出来的。虽然这两个平台有相似的目标和运作方式,但它们的主要区别在于Kiva.org有一个被称为现场合作伙伴的人物,他是借款人和贷款人之间的中介,而Kiva Zip没有现场合作伙伴,但有所谓的受托人,他们为借款人提供支持,但不充当资源中介或收取服务费用。作者彻底分析了Kiva Zip在2011年至2015年期间在肯尼亚的业务。Kiva Zip已停止在肯尼亚发布新的宣传活动,但仍在继续收取以前交付的贷款的款项。我们详细研究了贷款人、借款人和受托人对平台绩效的影响。此外,我们还分析了Kiva Zip上活动的不同阶段:发布活动、获得资助和偿还贷款的时间。这种分析可以提供对推动Kiva Zip在肯尼亚绩效的杠杆的洞察,从而使该组织能够确定需要改进的领域,以便在该国继续运营。此外,我们还确定了更深入分析亲社会众贷的相关理论框架。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Prosocial Crowdlending in Kenya
The crowdfunding industry has emerged in the past few years as one of the most promising alternative financing options. Lending and donating operations accounted for 81% of the crowdfunding industry's $34.4 billion total funding volume in 2015. Kiva Zip, a prosocial program, created an online platform that provides 0% interest peer-to-peer loans and has features in common with lending and donating crowdfunding platforms. This program is a spin-off of Kiva.org. Although both platforms have a similar objective and modus operandi, they differ primarily because Kiva.org has a figure called a field partner, who is the intermediary between borrowers and lenders, while Kiva Zip has no field partners but does have so-called trustees, who provide support to borrowers but do not act as intermediaries for resources or charge for their services. The authors thoroughly analyzed Kiva Zip's operations in Kenya for the years from 2011 to 2015. Kiva Zip has stopped posting new campaigns in Kenya but has continued to collect payment for previously delivered loans. We studied in detail the impact that lenders, borrowers and trustees had on the platform's performance. In addition, we analyzed the different stages of a campaign on Kiva Zip: when a campaign is posted, when it is funded and when the loan is paid back. This analysis may provide insight into the levers that drove the performance of Kiva Zip in Kenya, which in turn could have enabled the organization to identify areas for improvement in order to continue operating in the country. In addition, we have identified relevant theoretical frameworks for analyzing prosocial crowdlending in greater depth.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信