Journal of Business Research 152 (2022) 425–435

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Business Research

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jbusres

Partnerships in digital financial services: An exploratory study of providers

in an emerging market
Nkemdilim Iheanachor a, *, Immanuel Umukoro b
a
Strategy & International Business, Lagos Business School, Pan-Atlantic University, Lagos, Nigeria
b
Financial Inclusion and Digital Financial Services, Lagos Business School, Pan-Atlantic University, Lagos, Nigeria

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Partnerships play a crucial role in unlocking the enormous potential of digital financial services to increase access
Partnerships to affordable and scalable services in emerging markets. This study explores the major forms and patterns of
Digital financial services partnerships consummated by Nigerian financial service providers (FSPs) in the creation and delivery of digital
Emerging markets
financial services. Through case studies of existing providers and ecosystem participants, this study investigates
the role of partnerships in facilitating financial inclusion, as a cardinal aim of FSPs. The study finds that a well-
developed ecosystem is critical in driving financial inclusion and that such an ecosystem is built on effective
partnerships. Furthermore, it shows that ineffective partnerships hamper financial inclusion significantly. This
study develops a framework for consummating partnerships between FSPs from an emerging market perspective.

1. Introduction
Digital financial services are convoluted, given the need for resources
and capabilities drawn from banking, technology, telecommunications,
agent management, and distribution. Typically, a financial service
provider designs a digital financial service transmitted through a mobile
network and delivered to the last mile via an agent network. The goal of
delivering this service and, by extension, financial inclusion in most
emerging markets can only be achieved when the partnerships between
the various participating institutions succeed in a well-coordinated
ecosystem.
Attempts to bring formal financial services to excluded and under­
served segments using conventional banking approaches have resulted
in increased cost-to-serve, which translates to high cost-to-use, a deterrent
to the adoption of standard financial services (David-West, Iheanachor,
& Umukoro, 2020). Ultimately, financial service providers (FSPs) and
regulators have resorted to agency banking and mobile money by
engaging in partnerships with technology companies and mobile
network operators to extend digital financial services (DFS) to unbanked
and underbanked consumers (David-West, Iheanachor, & Umukoro,
2019). DFS refers to financial services, tools, and channels deployed
over digital technologies that can reach target customers in more
seamless and efficient ways than traditional financial services.
Notwithstanding the prospect of these digitally enabled financial
service delivery models, the efforts of stakeholders still fall short of the
desired impacts. An important question that has received very little
attention in the literature is why partnerships between ecosystem par­
ticipants struggle. Financial inclusion requires an ecosystem approach in
which diverse stakeholders are pulled together to harness their unique
assets, resources, and capabilities to deliver compelling customer value
propositions using business models that drive profitability and sustain­
ability. Thus, partnerships and alliances are critical to building sus­
tainable business models that allow FSPs to serve unbanked and
underbanked segments (Salampasis, Mention, & Torkkeli, 2014), espe­
cially those at the larger base of the pyramid.
Financial exclusion in Nigeria remains high, with approximately 36
% (38.1 m) of the adult population having no access to formal financial
services, while 13.6 % or 14.4 m adults are engaged in the informal
sector (EFInA, 2020). With about 60 % of the excluded population being
low-income, women, youth, and rural dwellers, banks and other finan­
cial institutions are constrained by high operating costs in establish­
ing brick-and-mortar branches where these excluded segments live.
These locations are mostly characterised by low economic activities
unlikely to drive branch sustainability. Nonetheless, there is a need to
extend financial services to these population segments, because inclu­
sive financial systems provide individuals with greater access to re­
sources to meet their financial needs, such as saving for retirement,
investing in education, seizing business opportunities, and confronting

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: niheanachor@lbs.edu.ng (N. Iheanachor), uimmanuel@lbs.edu.ng (I. Umukoro).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.08.010
Received 4 February 2022; Received in revised form 29 July 2022; Accepted 2 August 2022
Available online 9 August 2022
0148-2963/© 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
N. Iheanachor and I. Umukoro
shocks (World Bank, 2019, p.17). Although important, many adults in
emerging economies and third-world countries lack access to inclusive
financial services and systems (David-West, Iheanachor, et al., 2019).
Ecosystems are structured networks of organisations defined by in­
terests, motives, assets, resources, and capabilities for service delivery
through healthy competition or collaborative competition (coopetition).
Ecosystems may exist or function within industries or sectors, and may
be a mechanism for solving business problems by offering specific value
propositions. A business ecosystem is a dynamic group of independent
economic players that creates products or services that together make up
a coherent solution (Pidun, Reeves, & Schussler, 2019). The existence
and proper functioning of an ecosystem require that the diverse interests
of the various economic players be well aligned and represented. The
absence of this could jeopardise the delivery of the value proposition for
which the ecosystem is created. Thus, the attractiveness of an ecosystem
depends on its ability to harness the interdependencies between orga­
nisations and the collectivities in which they operate and to provide a
fresh way to think about specialisation, co-evolution, and co-creation of
value (Adner, 2012). Therefore, partnerships are critical to the
ecosystem approach for driving financial inclusion.
As countries such as Nigeria race toward achieving their financial
inclusion targets with increased efforts to reimagine their financial in­
clusion strategies, digital financial services remain the most promising
option for meeting the financial service needs of the excluded and un­
derserved populations. The ubiquity of mobile and digital technology
makes DFS the first point of call when imagining financial service de­
livery, which has far-reaching impacts (David-West, Umukoro, & Mur­
itala, 2018). However, the cost of technology is high and requires a
multi-stakeholder ecosystem to maintain cost-of-service delivery and
use at its lowest, while also guaranteeing business sustainability.
Moreover, Teng and Das (2008, p.725) note that no single firm possesses
all the resources and capabilities needed to compete effectively in a
market. This is also true for DFS providers, whose nature of business
(being technology-driven) requires strategic partnerships as a way of
making up for the firm’s assets, resources, and capability gaps.
Building an effective DFS ecosystem for financial inclusion can be
enabled by the design and structure of partnerships that the FSPs enter
with other key actors such as mobile network operators, agents, and
technology providers (Flaming, Mitha, Hanouch, Zetterli, & Bull, 2015).
In the absence of well-structured partnerships that promote the objec­
tives of all partners, partnerships are likely to fail, as partners are prone
to work for cross purposes (Walter, Lechner, & Kellermanns, 2007).
In an emerging market, partnerships are critical to address resource
constraints and institutional voids that hinder markets from attaining
maturity and functioning properly. Nevertheless, academic discourse on
partnerships and ecosystem emergence in driving financial inclusion is
almost non-existent. To this end, there is a need to study the phenom­
enon of partnerships in the context of emerging markets and financial
services, especially given the role of financial inclusion in driving social
and economic development at the larger base of the pyramid (BOP).
Furthermore, there are several considerations that firms seeking part­
nerships must consider when, where, and how to enter partnerships,
most of which have not been extensively examined in extant literature.
In discussing partnerships in DFS for financial inclusion, critical
questions to answer include whether partnering firms and businesses
should examine partnerships as collaborations and loose alliances which
do not involve profit sharing, or whether legal considerations should be
deemed secondary but must still be explored. Alternatively, the part­
nership should include collaborations where the business is involved
and there is profit sharing. Moreover, should partnerships focus on in­
dustry alliances where parties may require legislation, contracts, mem­
orandums of understanding, or an unincorporated/incorporated
association to run operations? What are the critical considerations that
economic actors within the DFS ecosystem take into cognizance when
thinking about partnerships?
This study contributes to the literature on partnerships, ecosystem
426
Journal of Business Research 152 (2022) 425–435
emergence, and financial inclusion by exploring the role of partnerships
in the emergence of DFS ecosystems in emerging markets and their role
in achieving financial inclusion. By leveraging evidence from 38
selected financial service operators, this study proposes a framework for
DFS ecosystem actors to create partnerships that would drive financial
inclusion. It also significantly contributes to practice by identifying key
considerations for consummating partnerships from both provider and
regulatory perspectives. We achieve this by exploring the role of part­
nerships in the emergence of DFS ecosystems and, ultimately, the
attainment of financial inclusion as a national economic objective.
Specifically, the following questions guided this study: (i) What is the
role of the DFS ecosystem in the attainment of financial inclusion in an
emerging market? (ii) How do partnerships affect the emergence of the
DFS ecosystem in emerging markets? (iii) What are the critical consid­
erations for DFS providers entering partnerships in emerging markets?
The remainder of this paper is organised as follows. First, we review
the extant literature on financial inclusion, DFS, partnerships, and DFS
ecosystem emergence in emerging markets. The theoretical foundation
and research framework conclude the literature review and are followed
by the methodology. The next section presents the data, analysis, key
findings, and discussion. This is followed by a section on the implica­
tions of the findings for theory and practice. There is a section on the
limitations and suggestions for future studies, and the paper ends with
some concluding remarks.
2. Literature review
Financial inclusion is a critical tool in promoting people’s well-being
and requires targeted efforts to achieve its impacts. However, this is
made possible through inclusive financial systems, which require an
ecosystem approach. The literature is vast on financial inclusion and its
role in national development, albeit scant on how financial services
ecosystems emerge, their structure, and roles in ensuring that the
financial services sector benefits all. This section reviews the extant
literature on financial inclusion and the emergence of a digital financial
service ecosystem, critical components, and considerations for DFS
ecosystem emergence and their interrelationships in driving financial
inclusion as a national development objective.
• Financial Inclusion: Understanding the What, Why, Where and
When
Financial inclusion (FI) is the access to and use of affordable formal
financial services that meet the needs of individuals and businesses. The
Center for Financial Inclusion (CFI, 2018) defines financial inclusion as a
state in which all people who can use financial services have access to a
full suite of quality financial services, conveniently provided at afford­
able prices, and with dignity for clients. Kama and Adigun (2013) define
financial inclusion as a process or situation which allows for ease of
access to, or availability of, formal financial systems by members of the
economy. David-West et al. (2020) describe FI as a state in which all
bankable members of an economy can easily access and use formal
financial services at affordable costs. It is a process that marks an
improvement in quantity, quality, and efficiency in access to and usage
of deposits, payments, credit, insurance, and savings by individuals
provided by financial institutions, delivering services at an affordable
cost to many low-income groups (Babajide, Adegboye, & Omankhanlen,
2015; Dev, 2006).
The Alliance for Financial Inclusion (AFI, 2017) notes that the defi­
nition of financial inclusion needs to be specific about what it is expected
to do and the impact it will have on the lives of financial service con­
sumers. The AFI proposed that the definition must consider answering
the following questions: 1) What are the most relevant dimensions to
measure, that is, access, quality, usage, impact, and others? 2) What
types of financial services should be covered when defining financial
inclusion? (3) Which consumer groups and income levels should be the
N. Iheanachor and I. Umukoro
focus? (4) Which providers should deliver these financial services?
Many of the definitions and conceptualisations of financial inclusion
point to the fact that it could be a process (Kama & Adigun, 2013), a
state of being or situation (David-West et al., 2020; CFI, 2018; Kama &
Adigun, 2013; Sinclair, McHardy, Dobbie, Lindsay, & Gillespie, 2009),
an outcome (AFI, 2017; Morgan & Pontines, 2014), a capability to reach
an outcome (AFI, 2017), or a set of measurable outcomes.
Financial inclusion is an important phenomenon in emerging market
research, especially in development economics and entrepreneurship
because it seeks increased access to financial services for low-income
households and firms (Morgan & Pontines, 2014). It is critical to in­
clusive growth, as access to finance can enable economic agents to make
longer-term consumption and investment decisions, participate in pro­
ductive activities, build financial history to access credit, fund human
capital investments in children’s education, access quality healthcare,
enhance poor families’ ability to minimise and cope with unexpected
shocks, allow individuals to manage liquidity, and/or engage in modest
asset accumulation to take advantage of promising investment oppor­
tunities (Iheanachor, David-West, & Umukoro, 2021; Kuada, 2019;
Fanta & Makina, 2019; David-West, Umukoro, et al., 2018; Park &
Mercado, 2015).
Financial inclusion is a means to an end, especially as it relates to
poverty eradication through social and economic inclusion. While
advanced economies have been able to build sound, resilient, and in­
clusive financial systems, third-world countries still grapple with a lack
of infrastructure and far-reaching policies that guarantee inclusive
financial systems. As a means to an end, AFI (2017) emphasises four
dimensions that financial inclusion efforts must focus on vis-à-vis:1)
access to financial products and services offered by formal financial
institutions, 2) usage of different financial products and services, 3)
quality of financial services–their ability to meet people’s needs and
expectations, and 4) the impact of financial products or services on the
lives of people, businesses, and the larger economy. For an emerging
economy like Nigeria, obstacles remain to Nigeria’s journey toward
attaining its financial inclusion goal, including a lack of skills and low
levels of financial literacy, low political and economic development, and
a huge reliance on a cash-based informal sector (Kabakova & Plaksen­
kov, 2018; Salazar, 2018). Although Nigeria could not achieve the na­
tional goal of 80 % inclusion by 2020, the quest for 95 % financial
inclusion by 2024 continues. Anecdotal evidence suggests that the lack
of an ecosystem-thinking approach remains a causative factor for this
setback.
• Digital Financial Services–An Overview
DFS are financial services that rely on digital technologies for their
delivery and use by consumers (Buckley & Malady, 2015). DFS com­
prises a wide range of innovative technologies mainly used in devel­
oping countries to deliver essential financial services to consumers
(David-West, Iheanachor, & Kelikume, 2018). DFS remains integral to
core services offered by banking and non-banking financial institutions,
and third-party providers that now leverage mobile phones, point-of-
sale devices, and networks of small-scale agents to offer essential
financial services affordably and conveniently.
The use of traditional financial services to meet the financial service
needs of various population segments has been the norm for years, albeit
considered ineffective given the changing nature of consumers and the
financial service landscape (David-West, Umukoro, & Iheanachor,
2019). To this end, DFS has become increasingly the first point of call for
many FSPs (Iheanachor et al., 2021) in adapting their business models to
serve the excluded and underserved segments at scale and sustainably.
From a demand-side perspective, the World Bank (2019) reports that
DFS can assist people in managing financial risks and smoothing con­
sumption, making it easier for families to receive money from sources
that are not easily accessible because of distance and infrastructure
barriers. This addresses not only demand-side barriers, but also helps
427
Journal of Business Research 152 (2022) 425–435
providers deliver financial services with a reduced cost-to-serve.
Modern digital infrastructure is critical for increasing public access
to formal financial services and has the potential to lower costs by
maximising economies of scale, increasing delivery speed, improving
the security and transparency of transactions, and promoting more
tailored financial services and security for cash (World Bank (2020);
David-West et al., 2018; Midika, 2016). DFS provides an additional
dimension in the discourse and understanding of financial inclusion.
Given the ubiquity of mobile and digital technologies, financial inclu­
sion is increasingly being discussed as digital financial inclusion, a term
that refers to the use of DFS and associated tools for the delivery and
consummation of financial services. The Enhancing Financial Innova­
tion and Access (EFInA, 2018) access to finance study in Nigeria shows
that over 70 % of the 36.6 million excluded adult Nigerians reported a
willingness to use digital technology to access and use financial services.
This presents a significant opportunity to meet the nation’s financial
inclusion objective given the shortfalls of traditional financial services in
reaching these population segments.
Between 2014 and 2017, DFS contributed to a 10 % increase in the
share of accounts of those sending or receiving payments digitally to up
to 76 % globally and from 57 % to 70 % in developing countries.
Demirguc-Kunt, Klapper, Singer, Ansar, and Hess (2018) report that sub-
Saharan Africa recorded a 9 % growth in mobile money accounts (a form
of DFS) between 2014 and 2017 when compared to a 4 % increase in
account ownership at traditional financial institutions. According to the
World Bank (2018), providing access to and use of e-money accounts is
an entry point toward using more advanced financial services, such as
credit, because there is a low Know-Your-Customer requirement and
associated use cost when compared to the cost of traditional banking
products. These excluded and underserved segments can access deposits
and withdrawals, money transfers and remittances, utility payments,
and other types of services either through self-service options or at agent
or branch locations, using digitally enabled tools and platforms.
Nigeria’s digital revolution, evident in its high mobile penetration
levels, did not impact the adoption of mobile money and other DFS
aimed at addressing financial inclusion (Pazarbasioglu, Mora, Uttam­
chandani, Natarajan, Feyen, & Saal, 2020). Notwithstanding, through
innovative technologies, DFS continues to expand and replace the de­
livery of traditional banking services to customers to meet the growing
complex financial needs of the excluded and underserved, and ensure
the competitiveness of FSPS, enabling them to grow their market share,
profitability, and brand visibility (Abbasi & Weigand, 2017).
• Partnerships and Ecosystem Emergence: A DFS View
Partnerships are key to the emergence of business ecosystems, and
could be a critical link between firms and business success. The business
model literature is replete with case studies on how leveraging a
network of ecosystem actors can help firms co-create and deliver
compelling customer value propositions, while capturing value for
business sustainability. To understand the role of partnerships in the
emergence of business ecosystems, particularly digital finance, it is
critical to first understand the concept of partnerships and ecosystems.
Partnerships: Using partnerships, collaboration, and alliances inter­
changeably is commonplace across strategic management literature and
requires clarification. According to Narula and Hagedoorn (1999),
collaboration refers to all inter-firm collaborative activities, whereas
strategic alliances and networks, although related, represent two
different subsets of inter-firm cooperation. Alliances can be defined as
inter-firm cooperative agreements intended to affect the long-term
product market positioning of at least one partner (Hagedoorn, 1993).
An alliance is the combination of two individual firms on a short- or
long-term basis to achieve a competitive advantage in a business envi­
ronment (Cao & Yan, 2017; Dubrovski, 2016). The survival of such al­
liances during market turbulence creates a longstanding and trusted
business partnership (Kmetec, Rosi, & Mlaker Kač, 2019; Meurs,
N. Iheanachor and I. Umukoro Journal of Business Research 152 (2022) 425–435

Sharmeen, Marchau, & van der Heijden, 2020) needed for ecosystem and optimisation (2013; Thomas & Autio, 2014).
emergence. A joint venture is an agreement through which two or more Thus, organisations enter partnerships to build ecosystems to enjoy
independent firms decide to create a new firm: a legal entity with its own economies of scale and technology exchange, gain access to new markets
social capital Del Mar Benavides-Espinosa & Ribeiro-Soriano, 2014. In and complementary resources, introduce new products, and avoid
the rest of this paper, we use the term partnership to refer to all forms of predatory competition. Partnerships are also critical to ecosystem
collaboration or alliances between independent firms entering cooper­ development, as acquisitions or investments in complementary asset
ative agreements intending to achieve mutually benefitting long-term providers can help develop the ecosystem. Partnerships among FSPs in
product-market positioning through innovative service or product the DFS ecosystem are challenged by inefficient partners, divergent
offerings. organizational goals, non-alignment with competitive advantage, and
Partnerships are purposive strategic relationships between inde­ regulatory restrictions, which lead to suboptimal arrangements
pendent firms that share compatible goals, strive for mutual benefit, and (Flaming & Mitha, 2013; Flaming et al., 2015).
acknowledge a high level of mutual interdependence towards achieving It is important to note that, unlike broad strategic management, there
goals that each firm acting alone cannot easily attain (Farrell & is sparse evidence on the emergence of ecosystems within the digital
Scotchmer, 1988; Ivashina & Lerner, 2019; Mohr & Spekman, 1994). We financial service sector. The significance of understudying ecosystem
define partnerships as any collaborative effort between two or more emergence in DFS is that ecosystems foster innovation, drawing on a
independent firms to develop or sell a value proposition, such as prod­ network of partners alongside linkages among assets, resources, and
ucts or services, most efficiently while capturing the value distributed capabilities of each partner. The leverage of such networks and linkages
among partners using predefined terms of the agreement. Partnerships gives momentum to value co-creation, delivery, and capture (Sako,
add value to each partner, sharing ideas and resources and gaining from 2018). Consequently, we argue the following:
the additional ideas brought into it. Partnerships exist in different forms,
Proposition 1. A DFS ecosystem is critical to attain financial inclusion in
such as alliances and, joint ventures (equity or non-equity).
an emerging market such as Nigeria.
Walter et al. (2007) stressed that industry networks, such as alli­
ances, can provide access to knowledge, key technologies, or other re­
• Partnerships, DFS Ecosystem Emergence and Financial
sources that managers can use to strategically position their firms within
Inclusion
a business ecosystem. In partnerships, organisations critically assess the
business goals, focus areas, and how they align with the people, pro­
Partnerships and collaborations are critical to the emergence of a
cesses, and organizational structures that support partnerships (Carn­
DFS ecosystem as they help understand the various actors, roles, and
well & Carson, 2005; Frølund, Murray, & Riedel, 2018). Partnerships are
expectations for value co-creation, delivery, and value capture. Part­
critical to how digital financial services are created and delivered.
nerships are also critical to the design and architecture of any firm’s
Selecting the right partner is a strategic decision that organisations must
business model. Sako (2018) noted that digital technologies and infra­
make and invest time and resources to speed up the business learning
structure create significant opportunities for business ecosystems. This is
curve (Bacon, Williams, & Davies, 2020; Parisi, 2017). In financial ser­
very much the case for FSPs that now leverage technology infrastructure
vices, partner firms’ capabilities are important in managing alliance
to deliver financial services in more efficient ways, reducing time-to-
relationships, while considering their own resources and organizational
market and maximising value capture among key actors.
goals (O’Dwyer & Gilmore, 2018; Russo & Cesarani, 2017). The success
There is growing adoption of mobile technology and, by extension, a
of partnerships depends on the elements of the agreement, level of
rise in mobile and digital banking which offers great opportunities for
engagement, profit-sharing, and commitment of partners (Flaming et al.,
increasing financial inclusion, making it possible to serve target
2015; Kadu, 2019).
customer segments in more profitable and sustainable ways. Mobilising
Ecosystem: This can be defined as a network of interconnected or­
the resources needed to maximise these opportunities can, however, be
ganisations linked to or operating around a focal firm or platform (Adner
overwhelming but can be addressed through partnerships, which is a
& Kapoor, 2010; Adner, 2012). Sako (2018) notes that business clusters
response to the challenges of market globalisation and competitiveness.
that involve multiple types of actors–entrepreneurs, investors, and in­
Kelly, Ferenzy, and McGrath (2017) posit that although partnerships
termediaries (incubators and accelerators)–are ecosystems. They take a
may require favourable contractual terms and investments, they offer
focal view of how both the supply and demand sides are organised to
partnering firms access to new market segments, the ability to create
meet industry or sectoral needs. Ecosystems research has received much
new offerings for existing customers, and deepen customer engagement
attention in the strategic management literature owing to ecosystems’
and product usage.
significance in evoking and highlighting interdependencies between
Through an ecosystem thinking approach, a combination of digital
organisations and the collectivities in which they operate, as well as
services can be achieved to deliver compelling value propositions to the
providing new perspectives on specialisation, co-evolution, and value
target customers. This approach toward solving financial exclusion is
co-creation (Adner & Kapoor, 2010; Adner, 2012; Thomas & Autio,
based on the fact that mobilising the required critical assets and re­
2014). Sako (2018) also notes that the relevance of ecosystem research
sources for delivering DFS is capital-intensive and would require the
extends to providing businesses with insights into strategy formulation
collaborative efforts of key stakeholders to build an inclusive financial
and implementation and helping policymakers to promote ecosystem
service ecosystem that meets the needs of the target population seg­
growth through effective regulation.
ments. The World Bank (2018, p.19) reports that digital partnerships
While ecosystems are critical to navigating complex business envi­
between the growing market segment of microfinance institutions and
ronments, their emergence requires partnerships between various ac­
mobile money operators provide an opportunity to increase the outreach
tors, as no ecosystem is made up of a single firm. Taillard, Peters, Pels,
of mobile network operators. Building a successful digital financial
and Mele (2016) argue that the ecosystem approach suggests that value
services ecosystem becomes critical in delivering digital financial ser­
creation appears in all its complexities, requiring every individual ac­
vices that meet the needs of excluded and underserved segments. It is
tor’s contribution, and the collective role that actors perform as they
also important to note that successful partnerships among FSPs are
exchange resources in their interactions. Thomas and Autio (2013) note
crucial to unlocking the potential of digital financial services to increase
that an investigation into ecosystem emergence shows that de­
access to affordable mass-market financial services in emerging markets.
pendencies among ecosystem participants influence membership, co­
ordination, success, and resource mobilisation and support mechanisms. Proposition 2. Partnerships affect the emergence of DFS ecosystem in an
Depending on the actors, the emergence of ecosystems may be unique, emerging market such as Nigeria.
but may exhibit three common characteristics: initiation, momentum,

428
N. Iheanachor and I. Umukoro
David-West et al. (2018) submit that DFS has the potential to offer a
diverse suite of available and easy-to-use, accessible, secure, convenient,
and affordable financial services, and can be a remedy to the high-cost
barrier to serving the excluded and underserved segments. As techno­
logical innovations in financial services continue to evolve, industry
value chains are also being altered, requiring new frameworks, guide­
lines, and regulations on how value capture is distributed among part­
nering firms. Moreover, DFS initiatives yield better outcomes when
supply side actors harness their assets, resources, and capabilities (Sal­
ampasis et al., 2014), a critical factor required for the emergence of a
strong and vibrant DFS ecosystem.
While an ecosystem’s thinking approach points to sustainable busi­
ness models that provide digital pathways toward solving financial
exclusion and building sustainable businesses, the emergence of an
effective DFS ecosystem depends on structures, frameworks, and in­
stitutions that support the collaboration of all stakeholders. However,
the frameworks for building a DFS ecosystem are lacking or best static
(Walter et al., 2007), especially those for DFS partnerships, leaving a
void in how partnerships are structured and consummated, key con­
siderations, and the roles that must be carried out by who and when, not
forgetting how value captured is appropriated. Drawing on DiMaggio
and Powell (1983) institutional theory and its various forms of
isomorphism, it is critical to emphasise that the activities and actions of
actors internal to an ecosystem can influence its emergence and success.
An Ernst and Young (2020) report on fintech partnerships indicates that
to comprehensively reap the benefits of a successful partnership,
ecosystem actors must jointly establish a common ground on which
partnerships are established. Thus, the establishment and application of
rules, requirements, and considerations, including efforts to establish
norms and procedures within the ecosystem, are paramount to the
emergence of a strong and vibrant DFS ecosystem. Therefore, we argue
that:
Proposition 3. Successful partnerships that catalyse the DFS ecosystem
towards achieving financial inclusion require implementable frameworks.
2.1. Theoretical foundations and research framework
Dynamic capabilities (Teece, Pisano, & Shuen, 1997) have largely
been used to explain the conditions of alliance success. Dynamic capa­
bility (DC) theory is considered an extension of the resource-based view
(RBV) of the firm because of the inability of the resource-based view
(RBV) of the firm to interpret the development and redevelopment of
resources and capabilities needed to address rapidly changing environ­
ments (Bleady, Ali, & Ibrahim, 2018). DC theory states that under un­
predictable market conditions, resource endowment is no longer
sufficient to justify the heterogeneity in a firm’s performance (Saebi,
2011). Therefore, the DC theory argues for the development of capa­
bilities that help a firm meet the demands of a dynamic environment of
business (Iheanachor, Umukoro, & David-West, 2020). According to
Bleady et al. (2018), DCs are processes that enable an organisation to
reconfigure its strategy and resources to achieve sustainable competitive
advantages and superior performance in rapidly changing
environments.
Thus, for companies to strengthen their competitiveness, they need
to develop a high order of resources that enhances their productivity of
the basic ones. Wu (2007) reported that DCs are important to
technology-based ventures, noting that the more abundant an organi­
sation’s DCs are, the greater the willingness of partners to cooperate.
Coombes and Nicholson (2020) also report that a firm’s partnership can
be revolutionised by leveraging its capabilities. Organisations enter
strategic partnerships because they help strengthen existing capabilities,
which, when deployed under a good strategy, are critical to winning in
fast-changing global environments (Kidd, 2008; Teece, 2014), especially
in emerging markets (Dentoni, Bitzer, and Pascucci (2016)). The DC
framework emphasises the importance of unique business processes,
429
Journal of Business Research 152 (2022) 425–435
both inside the firm and with partners, based on the resource-based
approach, explaining the conditions of alliance success (Teece et al.,
1997).
Drawing from literature evidence on how partnerships promote
ecosystem emergence in driving financial inclusion, we provide a causal
framework that shows the role of DCs in building strategic partnerships
(see Fig. 1). The research framework shows that the strategic partner­
ships needed to build a vibrant DFS ecosystem are a function of the
assets, resources, and capabilities (ARCs) available to the firm. The
absence of these can inhibit the formation of strategic partnerships
because intending partners will carry out a capability assessment of the
would-be partner firms to determine whether partnerships should be
forged. Once the right partnerships are formed, the process of ecosystem
development begins, leading to emergence (stakeholder interaction,
fine-tuning, and cultural development). This is followed by the evolu­
tion of the ecosystem, typified by growth activities, response to market
conduct, and other regulatory practices. When ecosystems reach matu­
rity, an inclusive financial system is characterised by affordable,
accessible, easy-to-use, and impactful financial services.
3. Methodology
This study adopts an exploratory multiple case method to understand
the role of partnerships in the formation of DFS ecosystems as an
approach toward closing financial exclusion in an emerging market
context. We purposively selected 38 DFS stakeholders–FSPs, regulators,
and other industry value-chain actors (collectively referred to as DFS
ecosystem stakeholders and referred to as cases)–that are involved in
one or various forms of partnership to deliver innovative DFS to
excluded and underserved population segments (see Table 1 for the list
of selected cases). We conducted a literature search to aggregate
scholarly works on financial inclusion, digital financial services, eco­
systems, ecosystem emergence, and partnerships using relevant
keyword searches on Google Scholar, Ebscohost, and ScienceDirect.
Data collection was approached in two phases. First, senior execu­
tives representing the selected DFS cases were divided into eight groups
of four or five stakeholders. By adopting a moderated focus group dis­
cussion approach, the researcher collected data on the types of part­
nerships undertaken by DFS ecosystem actors and institutional
arrangements that promote partnerships, structures, processes, enablers,
and inhibitors of DFS partnerships. The second phase involved follow-up
telephone interviews to gain clarity and validation. The data were
transcribed and coded using qualitative design analysis aided by NVivo.
We used a cross-case analysis (Cruzes, Dybå, Runeson, & Höst, 2015)
involving a three-phase analytical approach–thematic coding, phasic
analysis, and optimal matching–to identify types of partnerships un­
dertaken by DFS ecosystem actors, institutional arrangements that
promote partnerships, structures, and processes that support partner­
ships, regulatory enablers, and inhibitors of DFS partnerships, patterns,
and considerations for partnerships among DFS stakeholders. Phasic
analysis allowed us to capture coherence among the identified themes
across cases at a higher level than a fine-grained micro-level structure.
We then applied optimal matching to determine similarities among
themes and present the findings in the most distinct way possible.
We then layered our literature evidence on the data, allowing us to
critique, validate, and draw conclusions (Christmals & Gross, 2017;
LoBiondo-Wood & Haber, 2010) about our fundamental thesis that
financial exclusion is best solved using an ecosystem approach that de­
pends on effective partnerships among DFS ecosystem actors. There­
after, we present our findings and discussions using a narrative analysis
of the emerging themes. The narrative analysis focuses on eight selected
DFS cases: two deposit money banks, three microfinance banks, and
three non-bank FSPs (comprising two mobile money operators and an
agent network developer).
N. Iheanachor and I. Umukoro Journal of Business Research 152 (2022) 425–435

Fig. 1. Research Framework.

the internal technical support needed to expand partnerships. Other

Table 1
structures, such as a memorandum of understanding, service level
Case Distribution for the Study.
agreements, and contracts with defined terms that capture commission
Type of DFS Stakeholder Count Percentage structure, responsibility, and those that ensure regulatory demands are
Deposit Money Banks 3 7.9 % met. Structures that help with monitoring and compliance were also
Microfinance Banks 7 18.4 % emphasised as critical for supporting strategic partnerships among DFS
Non-Bank FSPs 18 47.4 % stakeholders. Fig. 2 shows the strategic partnership formation process.
Development Finance Institutions 4 10.5 %
Technology/Telecommunications 2 5.3 %
Regulators 3 7.9 %
4.3. Regulatory enablers and inhibitors/challenges to partnerships
Industry Associations 1 2.6 %
Total 38 100
Key regulatory enablers and inhibitors of partnerships in the DFS
ecosystem are presented in Table 2.
4. Results and discussion There are also non-regulatory challenges that stakeholders
encounter. One such issue is the lack of agreement on the commercial
The results of the case analysis are presented below, beginning with and revenue-sharing models (who is bringing what? What is perceived as
key themes such as partnership types, structures and processes required value?) among partners. Partnership arrangements take time to mature
for strategic partnerships, and regulatory enablers and inhibitors. This is or may never materialise. Another challenge is the poor analysis of the
followed by a discussion of the key propositions of the study. strengths and weaknesses of the partners (both technical and opera­
tional). This usually results in a party being left to shoulder the burden of
4.1. Types of partnerships undertaken by DFS stakeholders all operations, whereas others are laid back. There is also a lack of
frameworks that support effective partnerships in the DFS ecosystem,
Our analysis showed that stakeholders typically enter partnerships in which results in difficulties in addressing non-conformance to contrac­
identity management, distribution channels, product development, tual terms and performance. The final challenge is the misalignment of
technology, and funding. These partnerships are initiated by FSPs to partnership goals. Sometimes, parties intending to collaborate do not
build the required capabilities to deliver their value propositions to the have similar goals or strategic focuses. This often halts the collaboration
target market segments. We find that sometimes development finance process.
institutions initiate partnerships with some FSPs as a way of fulfilling We discuss our findings considering the study’s fundamental thesis
their core mandate of catalysing ecosystem actors toward building an
inclusive financial system that contributes to economic growth and Table 2
development. We identified the role of regulators as market enablers by Regulatory Enablers and Inhibitors.
fostering good market conduct, competition, and market maturity, as Enabler Inhibitors
well as discouraging unethical practices among players.
Regulatory Sandbox Bureaucratic bottleneck–prolonged and
cumbersome regulatory approval processes
4.2. Structures and processes needed to support the strategic partnerships Global Standing Instructions Ambiguity in policy interpretation
reducing service provider risk
Policy development opportunity Regulation and governance on data sharing
The study identified structures such as membership in internal review by industry stakeholders
standard-setting bodies for knowledge exchange that help smoothen Dual regulatory challenges partners are
partnership processes and structures relating to monitoring and evalu­ expected to meet
ation, which help review partnership arrangements that might help with

Fig. 2. Strategic Partnership Formation Process (Source: Author’s Illustration).

430
N. Iheanachor and I. Umukoro
that financial exclusion is best solved using an ecosystem thinking approach
that is driven by effective partnerships among DFS ecosystem actors. To test
our key propositions, we built our narrative analysis using a list of
characteristics of successful partnerships developed from the coded
interview responses.
A DFS ecosystem is critical to attain financial inclusion in an
emerging market such as Nigeria.
The study found that strategic partnerships are critical to resource
mobilisation for the effective delivery of DFS to unbanked and under­
banked segments that may not afford or access traditional financial
services given their socioeconomic profiles. Ironically, DFS providers in
emerging markets are resource-constrained and unable to deliver these
services at a low cost, thereby inhibiting the mass adoption of financial
services. A stakeholder noted:
‘…when you want to get into collaborations, there are a lot of things you
need to pay attention to. The first of them is to understand capabilities and
needs… does this collaborator have the necessary skills and resources?
Will I have access to these resources? How are we going to be compatible
and integrate the cultures of both organizations? How will I seamlessly
knit together the various parts of the organizations’ – FSP (DMB).
Denrell and Powell (2016) posit that the leverage of DCs made
available by partnering firms can increase a firm’s entrepreneurial
performance, profitability, innovation, and ability to overcome market
turbulence. This requires a convergence of stakeholders across in­
dustries. Such partnerships may come in various forms, leading to the
emergence of an ecosystem that creates synergy among various actors.
As Helfat and Martin (2015) note, providers can develop their firm’s
capabilities by combining resources in an innovative and efficient
manner to realise their strategic goals.
A typical example is partnerships among banks, agent networks,
payment terminal providers, mobile network operators, and others that
lower the service delivery costs for core FSPs. This is because the unit
cost of providing these services is shared among collaborating partners,
and by leveraging economies of scope and scale, FSPs can increase their
revenues and profitability, which ultimately drives sustainability. This
validates our proposition that a DFS ecosystem approach is critical to the
attainment of financial inclusion in emerging markets, where providers
are resource-constrained.
Therefore, a DFS ecosystem plays a critical role in attaining financial
inclusion as it facilitates a collaborative approach that harnesses the
capabilities of different partners to deliver the intended value proposi­
tion to the target market segments. Consequently, stakeholders enter
strategic partnerships to help meet the demands of ARCs. This study
shows that bridging this capability gap is sacrosanct to firms, especially
for those in emerging markets, because of institutional voids that must
be addressed for markets to work. Consequently, the need for technol­
ogy exchange, access to new markets and complementary resources, and
the need to maximise new business opportunities are critical drivers of
strategic partnerships among FSPs. Other reasons for entering strategic
partnerships include lowering business costs, leveraging economies of
scale and scope, the need to share or reduce risks, and avoiding preda­
tory competition and market envelopment.
Partnerships affect the emergence of the DFS ecosystem in an
emerging market.
Our data show that ecosystems do not emerge because of regulations
or a firm’s spin-off but because of various forms of strategic partnerships
among different actors in an industry or sector, or across various in­
dustries. Ecosystem emergence within the financial service space could
be voluntary (resulting from firms’ willingness and intention to develop
new business frontiers). It can also be market-driven owing to the
convergence of industries, as witnessed in Nigeria’s banking and tech­
nological space, where banks and technology services providers
converged to roll out automated teller machines in 2004, which became
the springboard of Nigeria’s e-banking journey. The third is regulator-
induced ecosystems which are typically built because of regulatory
431
Journal of Business Research 152 (2022) 425–435
requirements that cause firms to partner to meet government regula­
tions. For example, the use of unstructured supplementary service data
as a channel for service delivery requires banks to partner with mobile
network providers to deploy this service.
Therefore, it is important to note that the intent for partnership,
structures, processes, and the nature and level of assets, resources, and
capabilities will determine the efficiency and success of the partner­
ships. The emergence of a DFS ecosystem can be fuelled by strategic
partnerships that facilitate products and services and the subsequent
democratisation of such services which becomes inevitable. As noted by
Thomas and Ritala (2021, p.1), ‘ecosystems which are communities of
interdependent yet hierarchically independent heterogeneous partici­
pants who collectively generate an ecosystem value proposition—often
emerge through collective action, where ecosystem participants interact
with each other and the external environment’. In DFS, the value
proposition, which primarily makes quality financial services available
to users conveniently and at low cost, requires a collective (partnership)
effort to achieve. The processes and structures that shape these part­
nerships determine whether they will be sustained for a long period of
time. When the structures, processes, and strategic intents of various
partners align, such strategic partnerships can lead to the growth of an
ecosystem, which may lead to the entry of new value chain actors with
new business possibilities. We conclude that the vibrant DFS ecosystem
needed to drive financial inclusion is built on successful partnerships
among various stakeholders and value chain actors.
Institutional arrangements that promote partnerships
The study also showed that while partnerships influence the emer­
gence of ecosystems, they require institutional arrangements. At an
institutional level, the study showed that ‘inter-agency committees’ were
mostly mentioned as drivers that allow relevant stakeholders to foster
strategic partnerships for a vibrant DFS ecosystem. These committees
could be those made up of representatives from government ministries,
departments, and agencies related to financial services and representa­
tives from stakeholder groups such as mobile network providers’ asso­
ciation, bankers’ committee, the association of microfinance banks, and
regulatory agencies. Other institutional arrangements include those
between providers and development partners and arrangements relating
to internal procurement structures. A stakeholder posited:
‘In terms of institutional arrangement in place to promote strategic part­
nerships, there is a need for an inter-agency committee that allows rele­
vant stakeholders to foster partnerships, carryout advocacy and
networking through which they identify and promote collaborations e.g.,
development partnerships by EFInA and Deutsche Gesellschaft für Inter­
nationale Zusammenarbeit GmbH (GIZ) with other stakeholders (pro­
viders, Fintechs, and government)’ – Development Finance Institution.
‘What regulations do we have in place? Internal and legal framework,
compliance team making sure you are not flouting rules, the management
board, publicity and communication partners which takes the partner­
ships out there. The Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) regulations on
mandatory requirements could make or mar a collaboration’ – Financial
Service Regulator.
Successful partnerships that catalyse the DFS ecosystem towards
achieving financial inclusion require implementable frameworks.
Partnerships require coordination with instruments such as struc­
tured agreements, memoranda of understanding, and strategic initiative
documents to properly align the interests of the different partners. The
absence of these structures and processes can defeat the purpose of
partnerships and render them nonstrategic. Our study shows that, when
FSPs and other stakeholders enter partnerships, various interests must
be aligned and guided by instruments that ensure accountability,
compliance, and commitment to the objective of the partnership. These
structural and procedural arrangements are built on frameworks that
guide the consummation of partnerships. The framework ensures that
critical boxes are checked before and during partnerships to enforce
compliance, trust, equity, and transparency. Partnership frameworks
N. Iheanachor and I. Umukoro
also address the technological, security, and business model aspects of
partnerships. To buttress this, one stakeholder argued:
‘Let us better understand the challenges and create a framework that helps
us understand how to consummate these relationships, how to define these
partnerships, how to structure these relationships and what are companies
changing in our culture and organizational forms we would require to
have the right kind of collaborations’ – Financial Services Regulator.
Frameworks are very critical to how partnerships are forged, which
determine the emergence and different evolutionary stages of ecosys­
tems. As a result, partnership frameworks must cut across various areas
of the business model, from structural to legal, technological processes,
revenues and costs, channels, and other aspects that impact the soul of
the business.
‘Strategic partnership among parties of similar interests can help give the
resources, channels, tools, distribution network to engage that new
customer base so that the gains of financial inclusion can be effectively
delivered. However, there must be some frameworks that ensure compli­
ance of partners to all statutory obligations’ – Microfinance Bank.
This study identifies the following questions that a partnership must
address to succeed:
1. How well do you, as a firm, understand your capabilities and
needs?
• What are your aspirations and needs as an organisation?
• How would a partner facilitate the actualisation of this aspiration?
• What specific resources and capabilities will I deploy to facilitate the
• success of the partnership?
• What specific resources and capabilities do I lack that I hope to
acquire
• through the partnership?
• Do you need a partner? If yes, for how long?
• How big is the payoff?
• What is your likelihood of success?
• Is a joint venture the best option?
2. What are your considerations for choosing an appropriate
partner?
• Does the partner share your objectives for the venture?
• Does the partner have the capabilities and resources?
• What will you contribute to a partnership that would be of value to
your potential partner?
• Will you have access to the partners and their resources?
• Will you be compatible?
• Can you arrange an ‘engagement period’?
3. How well do you, as a firm, understand the capabilities of your
potential partner(s)?
• Who is this potential partner organisation? What is their history?
• What are their essential products and services?
• What’s their strategy? Customer scope, Product scope and
Geographic scope?
• What resources and capabilities do they have?
• What resources and capabilities are they willing to deploy to the
partnership?
• Is there a genuine shared vision and set of goals across the partner­
ship? A shared understanding of the vision and objectives must be
reflected in any project brief, business plan, terms of reference, and
work program.
• What reputational risks might this partnership present to my orga­
nisation in the short, medium and long term?
• What competitive vulnerabilities could this partnership expose your
organisation to?
4. What is the scope of the partnership?
• Can you define the scope of the partnership? Define the roles, re­
sponsibilities and expectations of each partner
• Indicate each organisation’s interest in the partnership’s success
432
Journal of Business Research 152 (2022) 425–435
• Will the other party agree to each parent’s duties and payoffs to
create a ‘win-win’ situation?
• How easy is it to establish the managerial role of each partner?
• To whom will the partnership report? Is there a process to report on
progress?
• Document the lines of accountability/reporting processes
5. What are the key implementation considerations for the
partnership?
• What additional skills and capabilities will you require for this
partnership?
• Is there an accepted process for decision-making? Processes for
decision-making need to define a quorum, approaches for recording
decisions, and arbitration processes.
• How will the partnership be governed?
• What structure and form would the performance of the partnership
be assessed?
• What will be the communication strategy?
• How will data be collected, analysed and communicated?
• Who is the accountable individual for the partnership?
• How long would the partnership last?
• What are trigger conditions for exiting the partnership?
6. What are the legal lacunas that might arise from market
regulations?
• Can you address these regulatory black holes?
• How much paperwork is needed?
• Can you address trust vs legal considerations?
• Is there an end game?
• How tough will it be for your organization to walk away?
From the foregoing, we argue that implementable frameworks (see
Fig. 2) are required to achieve successful partnerships that catalyse the
DFS ecosystem toward financial inclusion.
5. Emerging framework for strategic partnership
From a grounded theory domain, we present emerging themes as
characteristics, further divided into eight concepts that form the foun­
dation for our framework. While we recognise that these characteristics
may not collectively be exhaustive in representing the views of selected
cases, we have established that they are consistent with the literature on
partnerships and represent the desirable attributes of any strategic
partnership.
Eight concepts emerged from our analysis (Fig. 3). These include
Alignment, Communication, Core Values, Gain, Mutual respect, Leadership,
Coordination, and Conflict Resolution. While it is important for partners to
remain aligned, it is also important to share common objectives, have
the same vision for the future, and have a common understanding of
business goals. A stakeholder enthused:
‘What are my mission and vision? And in achieving these, do I need a
collaborator? If I say yes, for how long do I need this collaborator and
how big is the payoff? How likely is the success? What is the best form of
collaboration? And you can achieve collaborations through alliances,
establishing joint ventures where you go ahead to incorporate special
purpose vehicles, project companies that will have equity holdings from
the multiple partners in a new JV company and you have the company
carry out the activity to which it was set up’ – Commercial Officer, Non-
bank (Fintech).
While communication is important, it must be clear, concise, and
accurate. While different partnering organisations should have core
values, it is important for them to have shared norms, culture, and
commitment. The intent of entering the partnership should be to create
(gain) more value than any partner could, should it exist independently
and undertake certain business endeavours alone. The expectation is
that partnerships will give each partner access to new resources, skills,
and capabilities, which will ultimately advance their individual and
N. Iheanachor and I. Umukoro
Fig. 3. Strategic Partnership Framework.
collective interests.
To ensure that the partnership yields ultimate results, it is important
for mutual respect to exist in the context of cordiality, approachability,
and trust. Successful partnerships result from the purposeful and sincere
leadership exhibited by each partner in the tasks and responsibilities
assigned to them. A successful partnership must also have a high level of
coordination across different work streams, ensuring that each con­
tributes to the overall goal in a coordinated manner. Finally, a successful
partnership must have internal mechanisms for conflict resolution and
ensure that problems are resolved once they arise. Fig. 3 illustrates our
framework for driving successful strategic partnerships.
6. Implications for theory and practice
This study shows that to deliver financial services to the vulnerable
poor profitably and sustainably, FSPs require the required capabilities.
Although the extant literature discusses the relevance of dynamic ca­
pabilities theory in bridging a firm’s capability gap, there is sparse ev­
idence in the emerging DFS ecosystem. While this study has validated
the relevance of dynamic capabilities in delivering DFS profitably and at
scale, it also extends the theory to the emergence and evolution of
ecosystems through the leverage of various assets, resources, and ca­
pabilities as the fundamental drivers of strategic partnerships and
ecosystem emergence.
In terms of managerial significance, this study shows that no single
firm can drive financial inclusion, as the capabilities required to deliver
financial services to low-income segments are immense and beyond the
reach of a single provider. As providers contemplate forging strategic
partnerships, managers must also realise that the DFS ecosystem in­
cludes not only FSPs and other value chain actors who are beneficiaries
of the value captured, but also regulators, action groups, industry as­
sociations, international donors, research institutions, and development
finance institutions. Thus, a capability gap assessment is critical for
determining which potential partner is best positioned to provide the
required assets, resources, and capabilities, as well as determining how
value captured is appropriated among the various stakeholders in a
strategic partnership. Managers must conduct extensive engagement
433
Journal of Business Research 152 (2022) 425–435
between collaborators to ensure that the objectives and strengths of
partnering firms are aligned.
From a regulatory perspective, this study highlights the significance
of an enabling regulatory environment that promotes strategic part­
nerships among ecosystem actors. Regulations and extant policies must
spur the leverage of shared resources in a coordinated manner for the
emergence of a strong DFS ecosystem. Such an environment also sup­
ports the thriving of partnership frameworks so that contractual obli­
gations are honoured. To this end, Thomas and Ritala (2021) argue that
ecosystem emergence built on partnership requires legitimacy to over­
come the ‘liability of newness’. This study highlights the role of well-
developed partnership frameworks in addressing questions relating to
how best non-performance and non-conformance to contractual terms
can be addressed or avoided.
7. Limitations and suggestions for further study
The results of our study need to be explained and utilised considering
its limitations. First, we studied only the role of partnerships in creating
and delivering digital financial services in Nigeria. Readers should
interpret the results of this study in the context of Nigeria’s financial
services industry. Future research could extend this study to other ser­
vices that financial service providers render in a full-service institution
and see how generalisable our findings are. The boundary conditions of
this study restricted the context to the role of partnerships in creating
digital financial services in the financial services industry; we did not
investigate the role of partnerships in the creation and delivery of other
services rendered by other organizations that may arise from the existing
partnerships with the financial service providers.
There are several avenues for future research. First, the principal
subjects that constituted the cases for this study were organisations that
enabled the creation of digital financial services. Future studies could
extend to other members of the ecosystem, which may include
academia, consumers, advocacy groups, and the media, to better un­
derstand how these partnerships have impacted these other important
ecosystem participants. Second, our research is limited to Nigeria; it will
be useful for a further study to see the role context would play in other
emerging economy contexts (such as China or India) as well as devel­
oped economic contexts (such as the US or Japan) and also to under­
stand what theoretical and managerial implications it may hold for the
framework we have developed. Third, we concentrated on the dyadic
level to understand the role of partnerships in creating digital financial
services. Firms typically have a portfolio of partnerships and a part­
nership decision may influence another partnership. Future research
may better capture the overall pattern of the various cross-level part­
nerships that financial service providers enter as well as the individual
characteristics of each partnership.
8. Conclusion
Financial inclusion is critical to any nation’s development, as it fa­
cilitates transaction consummation, capital accessibility, and produc­
tivity, while enabling innovation, efficiency, and economic growth.
Inclusive financial systems that guarantee financial inclusion are built
on successful financial service ecosystems. Collective resource uti­
lisation through effective strategic partnerships can address the capa­
bility gaps of service providers within the DFS ecosystem. A vibrant DFS
ecosystem can emerge only through strategic partnerships forged along
the lines of common objectives. To deter unhealthy competition and
protect the interests of partners, frameworks that foster partnerships,
build productive ecosystems, and address frictions such as uncertainties,
lack of trust, inequity in value distribution, and resource allocation must
be developed to attain financial inclusion goals. This is because eco­
systems emerge and evolve to deliver value propositions to their
stakeholders. When diverse interests are not protected, such ecosystems
may become weak and ultimately collapse without meeting their
N. Iheanachor and I. Umukoro
objectives.
This study makes an important contribution to developing a frame­
work and guiding questions for every partnership in this space that
should be addressed to succeed. The study also identified emerging
themes such as alignment, communication, core values, gain, mutual
respect, leadership, coordination, and conflict resolution built up from a
grounded theory perspective, which is consistent with the literature on
partnerships that should be present in any partnership that would drive
financial inclusion in an emerging market.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Nkemdilim Iheanachor: Conceptualization, Funding, Visualiza­
tion, Writing, Validation, Resources. Immanuel Umukoro: Conceptu­
alization, Funding, Data Curation, Writing, Investigation, Formal
Analysis, Project administration.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
References
Abbasi, T., & Weigand, H. (2017). The impact of digital financial services on firm’s
performance: A literature review. arXiv preprint arXiv:1705.10294.
Adner, R., & Kapoor, R. (2010). Value creation in innovation ecosystems: How the
structure of technological interdependence affects firm performance in new
technology generations. Strategic Management Journal, 31(3), 306–333.
Adner, R. (2012). The wide lens: A new strategy for innovation. New York, NY: Portfolio
Penguin.
Alliance for Financial Inclusion. (2017). Defining Financial Inclusion. Available from
https://www.afi-global.org/sites/default/files/publications/2017-07/FIS_GN_28_
AW_digital.pdf Retrieved January 25th, 2021.
Babajide, A. A., Adegboye, F. B., & Omankhanlen, A. E. (2015). Financial inclusion and
economic growth in Nigeria. International Journal of Economics and Financial Issues, 5
(3), 629–637.
Bacon, E., Williams, M. D., & Davies, G. (2020). Coopetition in innovation ecosystems: A
comparative analysis of knowledge transfer configurations. Journal of Business
Research, 115, 307–316.
Bleady, A., Ali, A. H., & Ibrahim, S. B. (2018). Dynamic capabilities theory: Pinning down
a shifting concept. Academy of Accounting and Financial Studies Journal, 22(2), 1–16.
Buckley, R. P., & Malady, L. (2015). Building consumer demand for digital financial
services–The new regulatory frontier. Journal of Financial Perspectives, 3(3), 122–137.
Cao, Z., & Yan, R. (2017). Does brand partnership create a happy marriage? The role of
brand value on brand alliance outcomes of partners. Industrial Marketing
Management, 67, 148–157.
Carnwell, R., & Carson, A. (2005). Understanding partnerships and collaboration.
Effective Practice in Health and Social Care, 4–20.
Christmals, C. D., & Gross, J. J. (2017). An integrative literature review framework for
postgraduate nursing research reviews. European Journal of Research in Medical
Sciences, 5(1), 7–15.
Coombes, P. H., & Nicholson, J. (2020). Exploring dynamic capabilities in open business
models: The case of a public–private sector partnership. The International Journal of
Entrepreneurship and Innovation, 1465750320915858.
Cruzes, D. S., Dybå, T., Runeson, P., & Höst, M. (2015). Case studies synthesis: A
thematic, cross-case, and narrative synthesis worked example. Empirical Software
Engineering, 20(6), 1634–1665. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10664-014-9326-8
David-West, O., Umukoro, I. O., & Muritala, O. (2018). Adoption and use of mobile
money services in Nigeria. In: Encyclopedia of Information Science and Technology,
Fourth Edition (pp. 2724-2738). IGI Global. doi: 10.4018/978-1-5225-2255-3.ch237.
David-West, O., Umukoro, I. O., Iheanachor, N. (2019). Branchless banking and financial
inclusion: agents as facilitators of financial access. In: A. A. Shaikh, H. Karjaluoto
(Eds.), Marketing and mobile financial services: A global perspective on digital banking
consumer behaviour (pp. 227–255). Routledge.
David-West, O., Iheanachor, N., & Kelikume, I. (2018). A resource-based view of digital
financial services (DFS): An exploratory study of Nigerian providers. Journal of
Business Research, 88, 513–526.
David-West, O., Iheanachor, N., & Umukoro, I. O. (2019). Mobile money as a frugal
innovation for the bottom of the pyramid–Cases of selected African countries. Africa
Journal of Management, 5(3), 274–302.
David-West, O., Iheanachor, N., & Umukoro, I. (2020). Sustainable business models for
the creation of mobile financial services in Nigeria. Journal of Innovation &
Knowledge, 5(2), 105–116.
Del Mar Benavides-Espinosa, M., & Ribeiro-Soriano, D. (2014). Cooperative learning in
creating and managing joint ventures. Journal of Business Research, 67(4), 648–655.
434
Journal of Business Research 152 (2022) 425–435
Demirguc-Kunt, A., Klapper, L., Singer, D., Ansar, S., & Hess, J. (2018). The Global Findex
Database 2017: Measuring financial inclusion and the fintech revolution. The World
Bank.
Denrell, J., & Powell, T. C. (2016). Dynamic capability as a theory of competitive
advantage. In: D. J. Teece & S. Leih (Eds.), The oxford handbook of dynamic
capabilities. Oxford Handbook Online. doi: 10.1093/oxfordhb/
9780199678914.013.007.
Dentoni, D., Bitzer, V., & Pascucci, S. (2016). Cross-sector partnerships and the co-
creation of dynamic capabilities for stakeholder orientation. Journal of Business
Ethics, 135(1), 35–53.
Dev, S. M. (2006). Financial inclusion: Issues and challenges. Economic and Political
Weekly, 41(41), 4310–4313.
DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional
isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological
Review, 48(2), 147–160.
Dubrovski, D. (2016). Strategic partnership and equity alliances in the function of crisis
prevention and elimination. Modern Economy, 7(12), 1385.
Enhancing Financial Innovation and Access (EFInA, 2018). Key findings: EFInA access to
financial services in Nigeria 2018 survey. Available from https://www.efina.org.ng/
wp-content/uploads/2019/01/A2F-2018-Key-Findings-11_01_19.pdf. Retrieved
January 29th, 2021.
Enhancing Financial Innovation and Access (EFInA, 2020). EFInA Access to Financial
Services in Nigeria 2020 Survey. EFInA. Available from https://efina.org.ng/our-
work/research/access/ Retrieved June 25th, 2021.
Ernst and Young. (2020). Fintech partnerships. Available from https://assets.ey.com/
content/dam/ey-sites/ey-com/da_dk/topics/financial-services/ey-fintech-
partnership-report.pdf?download Retrieved January 29th, 2021.
Fanta, A. B., & Makina, D. (2019). Unintended consequences of financial inclusion. In
D. Makina (Ed.), Extending financial inclusion in Africa (pp. 231–256). Academic
Press.
Farrell, J., & Scotchmer, S. (1988). Partnerships. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 103
(2), 279–297.
Flaming, M., & Mitha, A. (2013). Why do partnerships in mobile financial services
struggle. Available from https://www.cgap.org/blog/why-do-partnerships-mobile-
financial-services-struggle Retrieved January 26th, 2021.
Flaming, M., Mitha, A., Hanouch, M., Zetterli, P., & Bull, G. (2015). Partnerships in mobile
financial services: factors for success-IFC advisory services in Sub-Saharan Africa (No.
94909, pp. 1–20). The World Bank.
Frølund, L., Murray, F., & Riedel, M. (2018). Developing successful strategic partnerships
with universities. MIT Sloan Management Review, 59(2), 71–79.
Hagedoorn, J. (1993). Understanding the rationale of strategic technology partnering:
Interorganizational modes of cooperation and sectoral differences. Strategic
Management Journal, 14(5), 371–385.
Helfat, C. E., & Martin, J. A. (2015). Dynamic managerial capabilities: Review and
assessment of managerial impact on strategic change. Journal of Management, 41(5),
1281–1312.
Iheanachor, N., David-West, O., & Umukoro, I. O. (2021). Business model innovation at
the bottom of the pyramid–A Case of mobile money agents. Journal of Business
Research, 127, 96–107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.01.029
Iheanachor, N., Umukoro, I. O., & David-West, O. (2020). The role of product
development practices on new product performance: Evidence from Nigeria’s
financial services providers. Technological Forecasting and Social Change. doi:
10.1016/j.techfore.2020.120470.
Ivashina, V., & Lerner, J. (2019). Pay now or pay later? The economics within the private
equity partnership. Journal of Financial Economics, 131(1), 61–87.
Kabakova, O., & Plaksenkov, E. (2018). Analysis of factors affecting financial inclusion:
Ecosystem view. Journal of Business Research, 89, 198–205.
Kadu, D. (2019). Five essential elements of partnership in business. Available from
https://www.shareyouressays.com/essays/five-essential-elements-of-partnership-in-
business/92215 Retrieved January 20th, 2021.
Kama, U., & Adigun, M. (2013). Financial inclusion in Nigeria: Issues and challenges.
CBN Occasional paper, 45. Available from https://www.cbn.gov.ng/out/2014/rsd/
occasional%20paper%20no.%2045%20issues%20and%20challenges.pdf Retrieved
January 26th, 2021.
Kelly, S., Ferenzy, D., & McGrath, A. (2017). How Financial Institutions and Fintechs Are
Partnering for Inclusion: Lessons from the Frontlines. A joint report from the Center for
Financial Inclusion at Accion and the Institute of International Finance (pp. 1–40).
Kidd, B. (2008). A new social movement: Sport for development and peace. Sport in
Society, 11(4), 370–380.
Kmetec, A., Rosi, B., & Mlaker Kač, S. (2019). The importance of partnerships in supply
chains. Management: Journal of Contemporary Management Issues, 24(2), 95–106.
Kuada, J. (2019). Financial inclusion and the sustainable development goals. In: D.
Makina (Ed.), Extending financial inclusion in Africa (pp. 259–277). Academic Press.
LoBiondo-Wood, G., & Haber, J. (2010). Understanding research findings. In G.
LoBiondo-Wood & J. Haber (Eds.), Nursing research: Methods and critical appraisal for
evidence-based practice (7th ed., Chapter 15, pp. 624). St Louis: Mosby Elsevier.
Meurs, H., Sharmeen, F., Marchau, V., & van der Heijden, R. (2020). Organizing
integrated services in mobility-as-a-service systems: Principles of alliance formation
applied to a MaaS-pilot in the Netherlands. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and
Practice, 131, 178–195.
Midika, A. M. (2016). The Effect of Digital Finance on Financial Inclusion in the Banking
Industry in Kenya (Doctoral dissertation, University of Nairobi).
Mohr, J., & Spekman, R. (1994). Characteristics of partnership success: Partnership
attributes, communication behavior, and conflict resolution techniques. Strategic
Management Journal, 15(2), 135–152.
N. Iheanachor and I. Umukoro
Morgan, P., & Pontines, V. (2014). Financial Stability and Financial Inclusion. ADBI
Working Paper 488. Tokyo: Asian Development Bank Institute. Available from http://
www.adbi.org/working-paper/2014/07/07/6353.financial.stability.inclusion.
Narula, R., & Hagedoorn, J. (1999). Innovating through strategic alliances: Moving
towards international partnerships and contractual agreements. Technovation, 19(5),
283–294.
O’Dwyer, M., & Gilmore, A. (2018). Value and alliance capability and the formation of
strategic alliances in SMEs: The impact of customer orientation and resource
optimisation. Journal of Business Research, 87, 58–68.
Parisi, P. (2017). The power of partnerships: Why businesses are better together. The
Globe and Mail..
Park, C., & Mercado, R. V. (2015). Financial inclusion, poverty, and income inequality in
developing Asia. ADB Economics Working Paper Series No. 426. Retrieved July 14,
2016 from http://www.adb.org/sites/default/files/publication/153143/ewp-426.
pdf.
Pazarbasioglu, C., Mora, A. G., Uttamchandani, M., Natarajan, H., Feyen, E., & Saal, M.
(2020). Digital financial services. World Bank Group.
Pidun, U., Reeves, M., & Schussler, M. (2019). Do you need a business ecosystem?
Available from https://www.bcg.com/publications/2019/do-you-need-business-
ecosystem. Retrieved January 18th, 2021.
Russo, M., & Cesarani, M. (2017). Strategic alliance success factors: A literature review
on alliance lifecycle.
Saebi, T. (2011). Succesfully managing alliance portfolios: An alliance capability view.
Doctoral dissertation: Maastricht University.
Sako, M. (2018). Business ecosystems: How do they matter for innovation?
Communications of the ACM, 61(4), 20–22.
Salampasis, D., Mention, A. L., & Torkkeli, M. (2014). Open innovation and collaboration
in the financial services sector: Exploring the role of trust. International Journal of
Business Innovation and Research, 8(5), 466–484.
Salazar, D. (2018). Why is financial inclusion in Nigeria lagging compared to its African
peers? Available from: https://www.centerforfinancialinclusion.org/why-is-
financial-inclusion-in-nigeria-lagging-compared-to-its-african-peers Retrieved
January 19th, 2021.
Sinclair, S., McHardy, F., Dobbie, L., Lindsay, K., & Gillespie, M. (2009). Understanding
financial inclusion using action research and a knowledge exchange review to
establish what is agreed, and what remains contested. Friends Provident Foundation,
Dorking.
Taillard, M., Peters, L. D., Pels, J., & Mele, C. (2016). The role of shared intentions in the
emergence of service ecosystems. Journal of Business Research, 69(8), 2972–2980.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.02.030
Teece, D. J. (2014). A dynamic capabilities-based entrepreneurial theory of the
multinational enterprise. Journal of international business studies, 45(1), 8–37.
435
Journal of Business Research 152 (2022) 425–435
Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic
management. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), 509–533.
Teng, B. S., & Das, T. K. (2008). Governance structure choice in strategic alliances: The
roles of alliance objectives, alliance management experience, and international
partners. Management Decision, 46(5), 725–742. https://doi.org/10.1108/
00251740810873482
The Center for Financial Inclusion. (2018). Toolkits and guides: Financial inclusion
glossary. Financial Inclusion Series 101. Available from https://www.
centerforfinancialinclusion.org/financial-inclusion-glossary Retrieved January 26th,
2021.
Thomas, L., & Autio, E. (2013). Emergent equifinality: an empirical analysis of ecosystem
creation processes. In: Proceedings of the 35th DRUID Celebration Conference,
Barcelona, Spain (Vol. 80).
Thomas, L. D., & Autio, E. (2014). The processes of ecosystem emergence. In: Working
Paper, Imperial College Business School, University of London, July.
Thomas, L. D., & Ritala, P. (2021). Ecosystem legitimacy emergence: A collective action
view. Journal of Management, 0149206320986617.
Walter, J., Lechner, C., & Kellermanns, F. W. (2007). Knowledge transfer between and
within alliance partners: Private versus collective benefits of social capital. Journal of
Business Research, 60(7), 698–710.
World Bank. (2018). Madagascar economic update: Fostering financial inclusion. The
World Bank Group. Available from http://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/
789051532448517077/pdf/128782-REPLACEmENT-Digital-MEU-Fostering-
Financial-Inclusion.pdf Retrieved January 25th, 2021.
World Bank. (2019). Financial Inclusion. Europe and Central Asia Economic Update
(Spring). Washington, DC: World Bank. doi: 10.1596/978-1-4648-1409-9.
World Bank. (2020). How Countries Can Expand Access to Digital Financial Services.
Available from https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/financialsector/publication/
digital-financial-services Retrieved January 2oth, 2021.
Wu, L. Y. (2007). Entrepreneurial resources, dynamic capabilities and start-up
performance of Taiwan’s high-tech firms. Journal of Business Research, 60(5),
549–555.
Dr Nkemdilim Iheanachor is a Senior Lecturer in the Strategy and International Business
Group of Lagos Business School, Pan-Atlantic University, Ajah, Lagos, Nigeria. Nkemdilim
holds a PhD Degree in Management from Pan-Atlantic University.
Mr Immanuel Umukoro is a Research Fellow in Lagos Business School, Pan-Atlantic Uni­
versity, Ajah, Lagos, Nigeria. Immanuel holds a Master of Science Degree in Information
Science from University of Ibadan.