Crowdfunding as a Social Phenomenon: A Bibliometric Exploration of Research Trends and Societal Implications

Crowdfunding as a Social Phenomenon: A Bibliometric Exploration of Research Trends and Societal Implications

Ahmad Harith Ashrofie Hanafi^1*, Mohd Shahid Azim Mohd Saufi², Muhammad Zarunnaim Haji Wahab³, Suheil Che Sobry⁴, Mohd Hilal Muhammad⁵

^1,2,3,4 Faculty of Business and Management, Universiti Teknology MARA (UiTM), Cawangan Kedah, Malaysia.

⁵Faculty of Computer Science, Universiti Teknology MARA (UiTM), Cawangan Kedah, Malaysia.

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2024.809079

Received: 27 August 2024; Accepted: 07 September 2024; Published: 02 October 2024

ABSTRACT

From a marginal to a relevant social phenomenon, crowdfunding has changed traditional funding patterns and caused far-reaching consequences in most areas of society. Actually, very little is known about the multi-faceted implications brought about by crowdfunding. Grounded on existing research, this paper contributes to an understanding of the overall societal impact created by crowdfunding through a bibliometric analysis. This methodology applies co-citation analysis, citation analysis, and keyword co-occurrence analysis to 561 journal publications retrieved from Scopus until August 2024. The results show that there are five major research clusters: Financial Technology and Consumer Behaviour, Entrepreneurial Finance and Innovation, Economic Impact and Business Models, Islamic Finance and Crowdfunding, and Social Impact and Public Goods. The paper contextualises crowdfunding within the framework of democratising access to capital, innovation, and social causes. It also underlines the integration of Islamic finance principles into crowdfunding models. The research set’s theoretical implications serve as the foundation for revised frameworks on entrepreneurship, venture capital, and social impact assessment, which incorporate the influence of crowdfunding. Platform operators, project creators, and investors need to adapt their strategies to evolving consumer behaviours, comprehend backer motivations, and take into account the wider societal impact of the projects they fund. The present research enables future studies of crowdfunding in terms of long-term impact and is a valuable insight for scholars, practitioners, and policymakers to steer their way forward in this fast-changing field.

Keywords— Crowdfunding, Social Capital, Innovation Ecosystem, Network Theory, Bibliometric Analysis,

INTRODUCTION

Crowdfunding has emerged as a pivotal social phenomenon, profoundly influencing contemporary economic and societal landscapes. This funding model, which allows individuals and organizations to raise capital through contributions from a broad network of people, addresses several pressing global issues. In an era marked by economic volatility and inequality, crowdfunding democratizes access to financial resources, enabling diverse groups—from small startups to social enterprises—to secure funding that traditional financial systems might deny (Aziz, 2023). Moreover, crowdfunding platforms have become instrumental in supporting humanitarian initiatives and social causes, thereby contributing to greater social equity and community engagement (Aziz, 2024). The rise of this model reflects broader trends towards participatory finance and collective action, which are increasingly relevant in addressing global challenges such as economic disparity, social justice, and sustainability (UN, 2024).

Globally, crowdfunding has rapidly evolved into a major financial and social phenomenon. As of 2024, the global crowdfunding market is valued at approximately USD 34 billion, with projections indicating continued growth at a rate of 15% annually (Global Crowdfunding Report, 2024). This surge highlights the increasing reliance on crowdfunding as a vital source of capital for startups, innovative projects, and social initiatives. The implications for society are profound: crowdfunding has democratized access to capital, allowing individuals and small enterprises to bypass traditional financial institutions and reach a global network of potential supporters. This model not only supports entrepreneurial ventures but also empowers communities by enabling grassroots funding for social causes and community projects (World Bank, 2024). Furthermore, the rise of crowdfunding has facilitated greater financial inclusion and social innovation, contributing to economic resilience and fostering a more engaged and participatory global community.

Previous studies underscore the transformative impact of crowdfunding on both economic and social spheres. For instance, Mollick (2014) demonstrated that crowdfunding has significantly altered the funding landscape for startups, providing an alternative to traditional venture capital and bank loans, which has expanded opportunities for entrepreneurs who might otherwise face financial barriers. This study highlighted that crowdfunding not only facilitates capital access but also enhances visibility and validation for new ventures. Furthermore, a comprehensive review by Belleflamme et al. (2014) examined the role of crowdfunding in fostering social innovation and community engagement. Their research indicated that crowdfunding platforms have become crucial in mobilizing resources for projects with social impact, thus driving societal benefits beyond mere financial returns (Belleflamme et al., 2014). These findings are consistent with recent data showing that crowdfunding increasingly supports initiatives aimed at addressing global challenges, such as sustainability and social justice, thereby aligning financial support with broader societal goals (Global Crowdfunding Report, 2024; World Bank, 2024).

Despite the growing body of literature on crowdfunding, significant research gaps remain. Existing studies predominantly focus on individual aspects of crowdfunding, such as its impact on startups or its role in specific social initiatives. However, there is limited comprehensive analysis of how these elements interrelate and influence broader societal trends across different regions. Furthermore, while substantial research has been conducted on the financial mechanics of crowdfunding, there is a need for deeper exploration into its long-term societal impacts and its role in shaping global financial practices (Aziz, 2023; Belleflamme et al., 2014). Addressing these gaps, this paper aims to provide a thorough bibliometric analysis of crowdfunding research, identify key trends, and explore the implications of crowdfunding on societal development and global financial inclusion.

This article is organized into several key sections to systematically address the research objectives. Following this introduction, the second section presents a detailed bibliometric analysis of the crowdfunding literature, identifying major research trends and thematic areas. The third section discusses the societal implications of crowdfunding, with a focus on its impact on economic inclusion and social innovation. The fourth section highlights the research gaps identified and outlines the study’s objectives. Finally, the article concludes with recommendations for future research and a summary of key findings, offering insights into how crowdfunding can be leveraged to address global challenges and enhance societal outcomes.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Definition and Explanation

Crowdfunding has significantly transformed traditional funding mechanisms by allowing individuals and organizations to raise capital through contributions from a large number of people, usually via online platforms. This democratization of finance means that funding is accessible to a broader range of projects, from startups to social enterprises, which might struggle to secure capital through traditional routes such as banks or venture capital (Aziz, 2023). This shift has not only provided new avenues for financing but has also redefined how financial support is mobilized and distributed.

Bibliometric Exploration

A bibliometric analysis of crowdfunding research involves studying the volume, growth, and trends in scholarly publications related to crowdfunding. This exploration uncovers how the body of research on crowdfunding has expanded over time, identifying key themes, influential papers, and emerging areas of interest. Such analyses reveal that crowdfunding research is increasingly focused on its role in facilitating innovation, supporting various social causes, and enhancing community engagement. For instance, studies highlight how crowdfunding has become a vital tool for projects that may not align with traditional investment criteria, thus broadening the scope of funded initiatives (Aziz, 2024; Global Crowdfunding Report, 2024).

Relevant Theories and Models

1. Network Theory

Network Theory posits that crowdfunding’s success is largely dependent on the strength and reach of the social networks involved. Crowdfunding campaigns leverage these networks to gather support and validate projects, suggesting that a well-connected and engaged network can significantly boost a campaign’s success. This theory helps explain why some campaigns succeed while others fail, emphasizing the importance of leveraging social connections and networks to mobilize resources (Mollick, 2014).

2. Social Capital Theory

Social Capital Theory focuses on how crowdfunding builds trust and reciprocity within communities. By fostering connections between project creators and backers, crowdfunding enhances social capital—essentially creating a network of trust and mutual support. This theory underscores the role of crowdfunding in strengthening community bonds and promoting social engagement beyond financial transactions (Belleflamme et al., 2014).

3. Innovation Ecosystem Model

The Innovation Ecosystem Model highlights the role of crowdfunding in supporting a broader ecosystem of innovation. Crowdfunding provides early-stage ventures with the necessary capital and facilitates collaboration among entrepreneurs, investors, and other stakeholders. This model illustrates how crowdfunding contributes to a dynamic environment where innovation can flourish, thanks to the collaborative efforts of various participants (World Bank, 2024).

Table I Recent Studies On Implications Of Crowdfunding On Society

4. Recent Studies

Based on Table 1, recent studies provide valuable insights into the dynamics of crowdfunding. Koh, Mao-Clark, and DeFranco (2023) reveal that socioeconomic prosperity greatly influences crowdfunding success in the restaurant sector, with both the entrepreneur’s race and experience being factors; however, experience alone cannot offset socioeconomic disadvantages (Koh et al., 2023). Dehdashti et al. (2022) examine how social media promotion can inadvertently cause slacktivism, where initial engagement does not always translate into higher donations, with notable effects occurring in the first ten days of the campaign (Dehdashti et al., 2022). Liu, Ben, and Zhang (2022) find that crowdfunding success is driven by human capital, project location, and team size, whereas herd behavior and social media postings have minimal impact (Liu et al., 2022). Cai, Polzin, and Stam (2021) review how social capital affects crowdfunding campaigns dynamically over time, suggesting future research should explore negative impacts and causality (Cai et al., 2021). Igra et al. (2021) highlight that COVID-19 exacerbated inequalities in crowdfunding, favoring the wealthy and educated (Igra et al., 2021). Liu et al. (2021) discuss the positive role of social influence from digital reputation and project-sharing in improving crowdfunding performance (Liu et al., 2021). Shneor and Vik (2020) provide a comprehensive review of factors impacting crowdfunding success and identify gaps for future research (Shneor & Vik, 2020). Bollaert et al. (2020) find that narcissistic entrepreneurs, by setting less ambitious goals and longer durations, often face reduced campaign success due to investor skepticism (Bollaert et al., 2020). Jin et al. (2020) explore how Facebook likes impact crowdfunding success, noting a J-curve effect that underscores the importance of quality-signaling and herding behavior (Jin et al., 2020). Simpson et al. (2020) demonstrate that crowdfunding enhances consumer demand for social-good products by fostering collective efficacy (Simpson et al., 2020). Popescul et al. (2020) identify psychological factors in social media-based crowdfunding that attract investors by leveraging unique platform features (Popescul et al., 2020). Finally, Theokary, Sarangee, and Karniouchina (2020) emphasize that strategic partnerships and prior success are crucial for improving crowdfunding outcomes (Theokary et al., 2020).

5. Research Gaps

While there is considerable research on crowdfunding, several gaps remain. Many studies focus on narrow aspects, such as the impact on specific types of projects or the role of crowdfunding in particular social causes. Comprehensive analyses that explore how these individual aspects interact and affect broader societal trends are limited. Additionally, there is a need for more in-depth research into the long-term societal impacts of crowdfunding and its influence on global financial practices. Addressing these gaps could provide a more holistic understanding of how crowdfunding can be used to tackle global challenges and contribute to societal development (Aziz, 2023; Belleflamme et al., 2014).

METHODLOGY

Bibliometric Approach

The bibliometric research strategy is an increasingly used tool among scholars because it is able to examine relationships between themes, fields, researchers, and publications. Other authors, like Boyack and Klavans (2014) and Van Eck and Waltman (2014), have acknowledged the utility of this method in its possibilities for delineating scientific domains by ways of categorisation and visualisation, which makes this tool very powerful to be used for the evaluation of scientific publications with the help of scientometric databases. This research applies a bibliometric approach to the deep analysis of articles on the societal impact of the crowdfunding concept.

Stage 1: Data Collection

A proper research question was first identified and allowed to guide the search string, which contained the two major sub-keywords and their synonyms, collected from thesaurus, synonym databases, and previous studies. Crowdfunding democratizes the fundraising process by extending it to the crowd, who contributes small amounts to realize a particular goal, thus shifting from the traditional funding model that involves one or a few rich investors or financial institutions. The social concerns relate to enhancing the quality of life that crowdfunding yields. The search query for crowdfunding in Troise, Ferreti, and Tani (2024) was modified heavily with terms such as “implications,” “peace of mind,” “financial benefit,” “personal reward,” “helping society,” “permanent benefit,” “benefits,” “retirement plan,” “Islamic financial planning,” “societal benefits,” and “income generation.” The search terms related to crowdfunding, specifically, included “wealth sharing,” “crowdfunding,” “takaful,” “waqf,” “money donation,” “voluntary contribution,” “sadaqa,” “hibah,” “infaq,” and “asset donation.” The search was limited to the “topic” field including only the titles, abstracts, and keywords for relevance. Geographical and linguistic limitations were not set. This search is conducted on 21 August 2024, and the search is limited to only the Scopus database, esteemed for its huge collection of scholarly data of almost 74.8 million entries, spanning 240 disciplines. The total yield after the initial search was 863 publications.

Stage 2: Screening

This study carefully selected articles, considering only publications in journals. This was done to avoid conference proceedings, review articles, books, book chapters, editorials, and letters. The goal was to concentrate on journal publications. The high quantity of journal publications necessitated the use of strict criteria. This study checked the data for inconsistencies and duplicates before proceeding to the next phase of analysis. On the final count, 561 publications passed the criteria to move on to analysis.

Stage 3: Data Analysis

Analysis of the data took four major steps. First of all, this study performed some descriptive statistics using the Scopus database to obtain information regarding articles, like the number of publications, citations, self-citations, and the h-index. The methodology suggested by Van Eck and Waltman (2014) was followed using VOSviewer software for citation pattern analysis, co-citation relationships analysis, and keyword co-occurrences analysis in the second step.

Co-citation Analysis

Co-citation analysis is a thorough and useful tool for examining the social implications of crowdfunding. According to McCain (1990), the methodology uses co-citation counts to assess document, author, or journal similarities. It measures how often a third source cites two publications together (Small, 1973; Zupic and Carter, 2015). According to Van Eck and Waltman (2014), the strength of any co-citation relationship depends directly on the frequency of co-citation between any two particular articles. White and McCain (1998) indicated that this method offers a prospective viewpoint by mapping changes and coherence in literature over time with the identification of interconnected publications or authors. In this study, the focus is on article co-citation analysis rather than author co-citation. This is to create an intellectual structure map that reflects the societal implications of crowdfunding. This technique is being applied in this research because author-centric analysis could potentially alter the results by taking into account broader research areas. As suggested by Fauzi et al. (2023), this may miss the contribution of co-authors when works by the first author alone are considered. Thus, this paper’s application of article co-citation analysis offers a nuanced and contextually relevant method for comprehending the intellectual landscape of crowdfunding’s societal impact.

Citation Analysis

According to Small (1973), Weerakoon (2021), and Jain et al. (2023), citation analysis plays a crucial role in assisting scholars in navigating the interplay of scientific ideas. Weerakoon (2021) illustrates that a publication with a high total number of citations may exert a greater influence on the subject, whether intentional or not. The identification of leading articles would be important with respect to crowdfunding and its influence upon society, in that it would provide starting points for formative effectual research. There are two main advantages of using a citation analysis in this study: on the one hand, it can be used to visualize the citation network, measuring the most cited publications within a field and presenting the citation links between them—visualizing the citation relationship and clusters. (Van Eck and Waltman, 2017). It helps the user locate key publications in his or her discipline by recognising the most cited works and their relevance and importance. This also helps to trace papers by their titles, authors, journals, and years of publication. It offers a thorough approach for undertaking document retrieval.

Co-occurrence of Keywords

Works by Van Eck and Waltman (2014), Fauzi (2022), and Alqudah et al. (2023) show that the main focus was on a keyword co-occurrence analysis. According to Fauzi (2022) the keyword co-occurrence analysis is the analysis used in determining the relationship between keywords by studying their frequency of occurrence in the titles of articles, abstracts, or keyword lists. The extraction by the author of the keywords comes from the supplied keyword lists. On the same note, Alqudah et al. (2023) argue that the size of a given bubble indicates the frequency of the keywords. Correspondingly, the thickness of the line determines that there is a stronger bond existing between two keywords. Table 1 summarizes the research question, strategy, and analysis technique, briefly giving an overview of the approach of this comprehensive study.

The next section of the paper delves into the bibliometric analysis of the societal implications of crowdfunding. This encompasses influential article identification through citation analysis, the structure of publications associated with the societal effects of crowdfunding through co-citation analysis, and a look at the future through the co-occurrence of keywords. More specifically, these analyses provide insights into the evolution of the crowdfunding literature with respect to its impact on society.

FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION

1. Descriptive Analysis

The search was made on August 21, 2024. The initial search revealed 863 documents. Filtering only journal publications, the search returned 561 journal publications. Total citations were 11,911, and without self-citations, 11,197. For these publications, the H-index is 48. Every year, the number of published items in this area rises, starting from 1 in 1981 and reaching 56 in 2024. This study can conclude from trends that publication numbers are rising and will continue to rise. This implies that the impact of crowdfunding on society has raised concern not only locally but also from an international perspective.

1. Co-citation Analysis

Of the 27,354 cited references, 53 met the 7-citation threshold. This study determine the cut-off threshold through several trials, applying thresholds 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8, until we form the most suitable and relevant clusters. Zupic and Carter (2015) asserted that ensuring an appropriate threshold level is crucial. If it is too high, then important and reliable publications that could provide a meaningful theme in the study context will be missed. If it is too low, the interpretation of the results will be very hard due to the complicated visualization. Table 2 lists the top 10 documents that have the highest co-citation and total link strength. This study built the network analysis about crowdfunding and its impact on society based on these 53 most-cited references. In that case, the top three highest co-cited documents will be Mollick (2014) with 62 citations and 281 TLS, Belleflamme et al. (2014), with 48 citations and 231 TLS, and Colombo et al. (2015) with 20 citations and 156 TLS.

Table 2: Top 10 Documents With The Highest Co-Citation And Total Link Strength

The outcome shows that the co-citation analysis divides the 53 references into five clusters, each represented by a different color, and presents the network map in Figure 1. The figure indicates the interconnectedness of five significant clusters. This network facilitates identifying the node’s strength in the entire network and positioning-related citations. The size of the nodes and the line thickness show the network’s citation strength level. The colour and lines of the nodes indicate the cluster to which articles belong (Wong et al., 2021).

Cluster 1 (red), labelled “Crowdfunding Success Factors and Dynamics,” primarily consists of articles published between 2015 and 2018, with a notable peak in 2017. Mollick’s highly cited 2014 study, “The dynamics of crowdfunding: An exploratory study,” anchors this cluster with 62 citations. Research in this cluster focusses on a variety of factors that influence the success of crowdfunding: campaign characteristics, entrepreneur attributes, and backer ehavior. Central publications, for example, are Ahlers et al. (2015), dealing with signalling in equity crowdfunding, and Allison et al. (2017), which treat the application of the elaboration likelihood model in crowdfunding performance. Anglin et al. (2018) analyse the effect of using positive psychological capital language on crowdfunding success. This cluster represents a growing interest in understanding complicated crowdfunding dynamics and factors that lead to success, providing valuable insight for field researchers and practitioners.

Fig. 1 Co-citation analysis on the implications of Crowdfunding on society

Cluster 2 (green), “Crowdfunding Fundamentals,” features articles mainly published between 2014 and 2016, indicating an early focus on understanding the basics of crowdfunding. The most cited article in this cluster is by Agrawal et al. (2014), titled “Some simple economics of crowdfunding,” with 15 citations. This cluster examines core issues in the economics and dynamics of crowdfunding, such as backer motivation, project timing decisions, and whether social networks are successful in crowdfunding. Some of the important works in this regard include Kuppuswamy and Bayus (2018), which discuss the dynamics of project backers in crowdfunding. Other notable contributions in this cluster include Belleflamme et al. (2015) on the economics of crowdfunding platforms and Ordanini et al. (2011) on how crowdfunding converts customers into investors. These provide basic insights into the workings of crowdfunding and participant behaviour that are necessary in building higher-level theories and models within this field.

Cluster 3 (blue) is named “Equity Crowdfunding and Investor Behaviour.” The articles in this cluster were mostly from the period 2015–2018, when the crowdfunding field had already reached a certain maturity. The most cited article from this cluster is from Colombo et al. (2015), “Internal social capital and the attraction of early contributions in crowdfunding,” with 20 citations. This cluster concentrates on equity crowdfunding, exploring investor behaviour, information cascades, and the role of social capital in attracting investments. Key studies include Vismara (2016), who examines equity retention and social network theory in equity crowdfunding, and Cholakova and Clarysse (2015), who investigate the relationship between equity and reward-based investments in crowdfunding. Signori and Vismara (2018) investigate equity-crowdfunded firms’ post-offering lives. This cluster provides crucial insights into the unique dynamics of equity crowdfunding, an important subset of the broader crowdfunding phenomenon.

Cluster 4, coloured yellow, deals with “Economic Models of Crowdfunding.” The results indicate that the majority of articles in this cluster came out in 2014 and 2015. This could imply that, at the outset, research was more focused on developing theoretical foundations related to crowdfunding. Belleflamme et al. (2014) article “Crowdfunding: Tapping the Right Crowd,” with 13 citations, is the most cited in this cluster. This cluster is concerned with the development of economic models that may explain crowdfunding dynamics, including product and pricing decisions, as well as the basics of tapping into the right crowd for funding. Other major works include Hu et al. (2015), who examine product and pricing decisions in crowdfunding; another by Agrawal et al. (2014) discusses the simple economics of crowdfunding. This cluster provides some theoretical underpinnings that will aid in understanding the economic mechanisms behind the success of crowdfunding and participant behavior.

The purple-coloured Cluster 5 bears the label “Campaign Characteristics and Success Drivers.” The articles, published from 2014 to 2018, demonstrate a persistent interest in comprehending specific aspects of crowdfunding campaigns. The article with the highest citation count for this cluster belongs to Frydrych et al. (2014), titled “Exploring entrepreneurial legitimacy in reward-based crowdfunding,” which has received 13 citations. This cluster examines the various factors of crowdfunding campaigns that drive their success, taking into account the role of information, interaction between creators and backers, and linguistic style. Bi et al. (2017) conducted the key studies in this respect, testing how online information influences investment decisions in reward-based crowdfunding, and Wang et al. (2018) examined the interaction between the creator and backers in crowdfunding success. Zheng et al. (2014) examined the role of multidimensional social capital in crowdfunding and identified a cluster that has practical implications for campaign design and management, providing valuable advice to entrepreneurs and platform operators.

Table 3 summarizes the co-citation analysis cluster on WLB in academia. It includes the cluster number and color, labels, number of publications, and representative publications.

Table 3 Co-Citation Clusters On Implication Of Crowdfunding On Society

Citation Analysis

The bibliometric document citation analysis identifies the most crucial hallmarks of the implications of crowdfunding for society. This research extracted 27,354 references from 561 articles related to the implications of crowdfunding for society. Choosing a cut-off of articles with five or more citations, this study selected 246 top articles. Researchers rank the top 10 most cited articles according to the number of citations in Table 4.

Table 4 Top 10 Cited Documents

Source: Author interpretation based on VOSviewer analysis

Belleflamme et al. (2014) give a more precise definition of crowdfunding, placing it into four broad categories: donation-based, reward-based, equity-based, and debt-based. In such a context, they provide insight into project initiators and supporters, given that crowdfunding democratises access to finance, particularly for start-ups and SMEs. This work has been very seminal, with 1,567 citations, and has contributed a lot to the area under consideration. In related research, Burtch et al. (2013) looked into whether there is any role that geographic proximity could play in the success of crowdfunding. They found out that a project’s proximity to one’s home influences the rate at which funders are likely to finance it. This complements the research by Belleflamme et al. (2014) by providing empirical insight into backer behavior. Moreover, Gleasure Feller (2016) analysed the social dynamics that influence backer motivations, thus further adding to the discussion begun by Belleflamme et al. (2014). Burtch et al. (2013) focus on the factors that influence contributions within crowdfunding markets, reflecting geographic proximity as having a strong impact on funding success, which enhances and reinforces favouritism towards projects located locally. Gleasure (2016) conducted research on the potential impact of motivational differences on crowdfunding approaches, which this paper builds upon. Isaac (1988) lays the theoretical groundwork for understanding economic behaviours related to crowdfunding. Despite not specifically addressing crowdfunding, Isaac presents a variety of contributor motivations, such as altruism and prestige seeking, which are applicable in this context. In a way, this research reverberates the works of Belleflamme et al. and Burtch et al. by placing contributor motivation within some higher-level economic theory to flesh out an understanding of backer behaviour in the context of crowdfunding.

All the most frequently cited works share a major theme. Belleflamme et al. (2014) underline that some of those might be financial returns, social impact, or personal connections to the project. Burtch et al. (2013) added geographical proximity as one more element to further development: backers tend to fund local projects more easily. Moreover, Gleasure and Feller (2016) have further explored this concept. Furthermore, Gleasure and Feller (2016) have delved into the analysis of how motivation shifts within a campaign, with the initial participants typically driven by altruism and the later ones by material rewards. Awareness of background psychology is critical for any campaign’s success. The campaigns should be very fine-tuned to the motivations of the target audience, whether by appealing to social impact or offering excellent rewards.

The highly cited articles represent the different implications of crowdfunding in society. According to Belleflamme et al. (2014), crowdfunding democratises access to capital as it allows heterogeneous entrepreneurs to raise funds that conventional financial institutions may not be able to provide. In that sense, it can foster innovation and empower usually under-represented groups in entrepreneurship. On the other hand, Burch et al. (2013) assert that geographical biases in funding can give way to inequalities wherein projects from less popular or remote areas struggle to get their backers. Gleasure and Feller (2016), on the other hand, believe that the types of projects that come for funding may start veering toward commercially more viable ones, sidetracking the innovative but riskier ones. Through this process, crowdfunding may actually combine some significant questions around project selection and equity concerns with future avenues of economic power and innovation. As a result, policymakers and platform designers must work within these dynamics to ensure that crowdfunding acts as an inclusive financing mechanism.

Co-occurance analysis

The keyword co-occurrence analysis was based on author keyword analysis. The threshold of at least seven occurrences was set. From the 2,850 keywords, 54 keywords were processed. Keywords with higher frequency are a statement of popularity in implications of crowdfunding on society. The highest word occurrence was crowdfunding (161, TLS = 258), followed by crowdsourcing (75, TLS =258) and waqf (42, TLS = 17). Table 5 present the top 10 highest frequencies of the co-occurrence of keyword analysis.

Table 5 Top 10 Keywords In The Co-Occurrence Of Keywords Analysis

The network structure of the co-word analysis shows compact and closely connected clusters. The five clusters intersect, commending potential future trends within.

The first cluster, “Financial Technology and Consumer Behaviour,” includes 14 keywords, such as economics, the internet, and social media, all of which relate to investigating how financial innovation within digital platforms interacts with changing consumer behaviours in the crowdfunding landscape (Zhang et al., 2020; Kumar et al., 2020). This cluster indicates that technological progress is driving change in crowdfunding practices and the nature of consumer engagement (Blaseg et al., 2021; Domingo-Ferrer et al., 2020). The cluster assumes a high level of interaction between technological innovation and changing consumer behavior patterns in the crowdfunding space.

Fig 2 Co-occurance analysis on cryptocurrency within conventional financial market

The second cluster, “Entrepreneurial Finance and Innovation,” consists of 11 keywords such as crowdfunding, entrepreneurship, and venture capital. All of these keywords together highlight the fact that crowdfunding is revolutionizing, in general, entrepreneurial finance and leading to innovation. As indicated by Defazio et al. (2021) and Xiang et al. (2021), crowdfunding has started playing a chief role for entrepreneurs, normally complementing or competing with traditional venture capital. This paper stresses the emerging importance of crowdfunding not only as a means for entrepreneurs to raise capital but also for investors to seek portfolio diversification opportunities (Rose et al., 2021).

The third cluster, “Economic Impact and Business Models,” with keywords such as commerce, crowdsourcing, and cost-benefit analysis, sets the focus on the broader economic implications of crowdfunding and the development of new business models (Burtch et al., 2021; Dospinescu et al., 2021). This cluster emphasises the need for insight into how various approaches to crowdfunding make a difference in the economy from the perspective of commerce and industrial practices (Testa et al., 2020; Nguyen et al., 2021).

The fourth cluster, “Islamic Finance and Crowdfunding,” consists of 8 keywords: cash waqf, Islamic finance, and takaful. This had been a very exciting area of research—that is, the integration of principles in Islamic finance with modern crowdfunding models (Sukmana et al., 2020; Kasri et al., 2022. This cluster suggests that adapting crowdfunding to Islamic financial practices would broaden its reach within Muslim-dominated countries and drive further financial innovation.

The fifth cluster, “Social Impact and Public Goods,” consists of eight keywords: public goods, economic and social impacts, and social networking (online), which examines how crowdfunding may help solve social problems by financing public projects (Igra et al., 2021; Gooch et al., 2020). This cluster highlights the increasing role that crowdfunding is playing in driving social change and community development, primarily through online social networks (Janetschek, 2020).

Specifically, these clusters all contribute to a holistic perspective of the multi-dimensional impact of crowdfunding in society, from technological and financial to economic, cultural, and social dimensions. As suggested by Mochkabadi and Volkmann (2020) and Troise et al. (2024) such an analysis shows that, apart from simply shifting financial practices, crowdfunding also influences social structures, entrepreneurial possibilities, and the supply of public goods. Table 6 summarizes the co-occurrence analysis, including cluster numbers and colors, cluster labels, the number of keywords, and a representative.

Table 6 Summary Of Co-Occurance Analysis On Implications Of Crowdfunding On Society

Theoretical implications

The bibliometric analysis of crowdfunding’s implications for society makes several important theoretical contributions. First, it underlines that crowdfunding is and will continue to be a changing phenomenon with characteristics crossing technological, financial, economic, cultural, and social dimensions (Mochkabadi & Volkmann, 2020; Troise et al., 2024). The findings unveiled the interplay of fintech and consumer behaviour in a way that shows technological innovation is changing the practice of crowdfunding and affecting consumer involvement (Blaseg et al., 2021; Domingo-Ferrer et al., 2020). This way, the finding adds to our understanding of how digital platforms are revolutionizing the conventional financial model. Therefore, the study emphasizes the growing significance of crowdfunding as a source of entrepreneurial finance and innovation, drawing on the work of Defazio et al. (2021) and Xiang et al. (2021). This underscores the need to revise established theories on entrepreneurship and venture capital to accommodate this new funding source. Moreover, the presence of Islamic finance in crowdfunding models has also been a driver of theoretical reconceptualisation related to how cultural and religious forces act upon financial innovation (Sukmana et al., 2020; Kasri et al., 2022). Furthermore, the literature clearly demonstrates the use of crowdfunding to fund social projects or address social issues, necessitating the creation of new theoretical frameworks that consider the social influence of financial technologies.

Managerial implications

The findings of this study are of major significance for crowdfunding platforms, project creators, and investors. Based on these results, Zhang et al. (2020) and Kumar et al. (2020) suggest that crowdfunding platforms should refocus their strategies to align with changing consumer behaviours and technological advancements. Features that would enhance user engagement and trust in the platforms—like better social media integration and transparent project tracking—are features that the platforms in these settings should work on. The results inform the creators of the projects that there is a need to understand the backer motives in order to structure the campaigns appropriately (Belleflamme et al., 2014; Burtch et al., 2013). Therefore, creators need to work on compelling narratives and attractive rewards relevant to their targeted audience. The finding implies that creators should exploit social networks and geographic proximity in order to improve the likelihood of project success (Vismara, 2016; Colombo et al., 2015). Hence, the study says that investors must be wary and look at the creator’s track record, feasibility, and probable social impact of the projects (Ahlers et al., 2015; Cholakova & Clarysse, 2015). Second, the emergence of Islamic finance in crowdfunding has created a new opportunity for investors, particularly those seeking Sharia-compliant investments (Sukmana et al., 2020; Kasri et al., 2022).

LIMITATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Some limitations to this study, despite the contributions, provide several ways in which future research can make up for the deficiencies. First, this analysis is based on data up to August 2024, lacking the very latest developments in the rapidly changing crowdfunding landscape. Future studies will have to make longitudinal analyses with a view to changing crowdfunding trends over time. The second limitation is that the research is heavily reliant on bibliometric analysis, which might not be able to fully capture the nuanced nature of the socio-economic phenomenon of crowdfunding. Future studies could complement this approach with qualitative research that involves in-depth interviews with crowdfunding stakeholders (Ordanini et al., 2011; Frydrych et al., 2014). Third, while this study acknowledges the emergence of Islamic finance in crowdfunding, it does not delve deeper into the topic. Future research may consider the degree to which current crowdfunding models are able to integrate Islamic principles and how these affect funding outcomes (Sukmana et al., 2020; Kasri et al., 2022). Moreover, this study, based solely on academic literature, does not offer a full view of trends and industry innovations. Future research may therefore use complementary industry reports and case studies to provide further depth with respect to the societal impact of crowdfunding. Finally, this study does not extensively tackle the potential negative impacts of crowdfunding, such as fraud or market saturation. Further studies should discover these possible drawbacks and accordingly propose some mitigation measures for them (Gleasure, 2016; Signori & Vismara, 2018).

CONCLUSION

Therefore, this bibliometric analysis provides a comprehensive landscape view of the societal implications of crowdfunding, demonstrating its multifacetedness and far-reaching impact. This is summarised as follows: Crowdfunding has transformed entrepreneurial finance, as demonstrated by Defazio et al. (2021) and Xiang et al. (2021); it influences consumer behavior, as noted by Zhang et al. (2020) and Kumar et al. (2020); and it contributes to social causes, as demonstrated by Igra et al. (2021) and Gooch et al. (2020). This also highlights cultural and religious elements in Islamic finance. While crowdfunding offers a panoply of opportunities related to democratising access to capital and enhancing innovation, from another point of view, it does involve essential issues related to fairness, risk, and regulatory settings. Therefore, conducting further research will be crucial for gaining a comprehensive understanding of crowdfunding in the long run. Hence, this research provides a stepping stone to further studies in the field of crowdfunding and offers very valuable information to scholars, practitioners, and policy framers, among others.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

We would like to extend our heartfelt gratitude to the numerous researchers and scholars whose work has significantly contributed to the understanding of crowdfunding as a social phenomenon. Special thanks go to those who have provided invaluable data and insights through their bibliometric analyses and systematic reviews, which have been essential for exploring the trends and societal implications of crowdfunding. Your dedication to advancing knowledge in this field is deeply appreciated.

We also wish to acknowledge Universiti Teknologi Mara Kedah for their support and resources that have facilitated this research. The institutional support, including access to academic databases and research facilities, has been instrumental in carrying out this comprehensive bibliometric exploration.

Additionally, we acknowledge the support from various crowdfunding platforms and stakeholders whose practical experiences and case studies have enriched our research.

REFERENCES

1. Agrawal, A., Catalini, C., & Goldfarb, A. (2014). Some simple economics of crowdfunding. Innovation Policy and the Economy, 14(1), 63–97.
2. Ahlers, G. K. C., Cumming, D. J., Guenther, C., & Schweizer, D. (2015). Signaling in equity crowdfunding. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 39(4), 955–980.
3. Allison, T. H., Davis, B. C., Webb, J. W., & Short, J. C. (2017). Persuasion in crowdfunding: An elaboration likelihood model of crowdfunding performance. Journal of Business Venturing, 32(2), 193–216.
4. Alqudah, A. M., Hoque, E., & Rayhana, S. (2023). A Systematic Review of Sustainable HRM: Co-word Analysis and Future Direction. Sustainability, 15(3), 2439.
5. Anglin, A. H., Short, J. C., Drover, W., Stevenson, R. M., McKenny, A. F., & Allison, T. H. (2018). The power of positivity? The influence of positive psychological capital language on crowdfunding performance. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 42(4), 603–629.
6. Aziz, S. (2023). Crowdfunding: A bibliometric analysis and future research. Journal of Business Research, 157, 1137-1150.
7. Aziz, S. (2024). Crowdfunding: A bibliometric analysis and future research agenda. ResearchGate. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/376065407_Crowdfunding_A_bibliometric_analysis_and_future_research_Agenda. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/376065407_Crowdfunding_A_bibliometric_analysis_and_future_research_Agenda
8. Bollaert, H., Leboeuf, G., & Schwienbacher, A. (2020). The narcissism of crowdfunding entrepreneurs. Small Business Economics, 55, 57-76.
9. Belleflamme, P., Lambert, T., & Schwienbacher, A. (2014). Crowdfunding: Tapping the right crowd. Journal of Business Venturing, 29(5), 585–609.
10. Belleflamme, P., Omrani, N., & Peitz, M. (2015). The economics of crowdfunding platforms. Information Economics and Policy, 33, 11–28.
11. Bi, Y., & Wang, Y. (2017). The influence of online information on investing decisions in reward-based crowdfunding. Journal of Business Research, 90, 318–324.
12. Burtch, G., Ghose, A., & Wattal, S. (2013). An empirical examination of the antecedents and consequences of contribution patterns in crowd-funded markets. Information Systems Research, 24(3), 499–519.
13. Burtch, G., Ghose, A., & Wattal, S. (2021). How do consumers pay for digital goods over time? Research Policy, 50(6), 104207.
14. Cai, W., Polzin, F., & Stam, E. (2021). Crowdfunding and social capital: A systematic review using a dynamic perspective. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 162, 120412.
15. Cholakova, M., & Clarysse, B. (2015). Does the use of equity crowdfunding platforms create a new type of investor? Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 39(2), 245–267.
16. Colombo, M. G., Franzoni, C., & Rossi-Lamastra, C. (2015). Internal social capital and the attraction of early contributions in crowdfunding. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 39(1), 75–100.
17. Defazio, D., Franzoni, C., & Rossi-Lamastra, C. (2021). How pro-social framing affects the success of crowdfunding projects: The role of emphasis and information crowdedness. Journal of Business Ethics, 171(2), 357–378.
18. Dehdashti, Y., Namin, A., Ratchford, B. T., & Chonko, L. B. (2022). The Unanticipated Dynamics of Promoting Crowdfunding Donation Campaigns on Social Media. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 57(1).
19. Domingo-Ferrer, J., Sánchez, D., & Blanco-Justicia, A. (2020). The limits of amplification attacks. IEEE Security & Privacy, 18(2), 60–63.
20. Dospinescu, N., Dospinescu, O., & Tatarusanu, M. (2021). Analysis of the influence factors on the reputation of food-delivery companies: Evidence from Romania. Sustainability, 13(8), 4154.
21. Fauzi, M. A. (2022). Mapping halal logistics research: Co-occurrence analysis and future directions. Maritime Policy & Management, 1-18.
22. Fauzi, M. A., Shams, R., Widjojo, K., Sair, A., Alam, S. S., & Hamdoun, M. (2023). Artificial intelligence in warehousing: A bibliometric analysis and future research directions. Expert Systems with Applications, 116053.
23. Frydrych, D., Bock, A. J., & Hock, M. (2014). Exploring entrepreneurial legitimacy in reward-based crowdfunding. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 38(6), 1155–1177.
24. Gleasure, R. (2016). Resistance to crowdfunding among entrepreneurs: An impression management perspective. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 25(2), 126–141.
25. Global Crowdfunding Report. (2024). Global crowdfunding market overview and forecasts. Retrieved from https://www.globalcrowdfundingreport.com
26. Gooch, J., García, E., Dredze, M., & Broniatowski, D. A. (2020). The politics of social good: Using social media to advance public health. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 22(12), e23810.
27. Igra, M., Kenworthy, N., Luchsinger, C., & Jung, J. K. (2021). Crowdfunding as a response to COVID-19: Increasing inequities at a time of crisis. Social Science & Medicine, 282, 114105.
28. Isaac, R. M. (1988). Research on experimental markets. Science, 242(4882), 1132–1139.
29. Janetschek, H. (2020). Agents of sustainability transitions: Inter-and transdisciplinary research and the role of science institutions. Sustainability, 12(24), 10449.
30. Kasri, R. A., Rinanda, F. M., & Aldosari, M. (2022). Understanding the determinants of Islamic fintech adoption: Evidence from Indonesia. Journal of Islamic Accounting and Business Research, 13(9), 1669–1691.
31. Koh, Y., Mao-Clark, X.and DeFranco, A. (2023), “Impact of socioeconomic prosperity and race on crowdfunding success”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 35 No. 11, pp. 4031-4050.
32. Kumar, P., Langberg, N., & Zvilichovsky, D. (2020). (Crowd)funding innovation. Journal of Financial Economics, 138(2), 318–334.
33. Liu, Z., Ben, S., & Zhang, R. (2022). Factors Affecting Crowdfunding Success. Journal of Computer Information Systems, 63(2), 241–256.
34. McCain, K. W. (1990). Mapping authors’ co-citation networks: A longitudinal study of the literature on nuclear structure (1950-1980). In Proceedings of the ASIS Annual Meeting (Vol. 27, pp. 128-138). American Society for Information Science.
35. Mochkabadi, K., & Volkmann, C. K. (2020). Equity crowdfunding: A systematic review of the literature. Small Business Economics, 54(1), 75–118.
36. Mollick, E. (2014). The dynamics of crowdfunding: An exploratory study. Journal of Business Venturing, 29(1), 1–16.
37. Nguyen, N., Hoang, H. T., & Agbola, F. W. (2021). Untangling the role of CSR in corporate financial performance: Evidence from the Australian context. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 28(2), 786–802.
38. Ordanini, A., Miceli, L., Pizzetti, M., & Poon, S. (2011). Crowdfunding: Transforming customers into investors. Journal of Business Research, 66(9), 1287–1295.
39. Popescul, D., Radu, L. D., Păvăloaia, V. D., & Georgescu, M. R. (2020). Psychological determinants of investor motivation in social media-based crowdfunding projects: A systematic review. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 588121.
40. Rose, S., Wentzel, D., Hopp, C., & Kaminski, J. (2021). Launching for success: The effects of psychological distance and mental simulation on funding decisions and crowdfunding performance. Journal of Business Venturing, 36(4), 106106.
41. Small, H. (1973). Co-citation in the scientific literature: A new measure of the relationship between two documents. Journal of the American Society for information Science, 24(4), 265-269.
42. Signori, A., & Vismara, S. (2018). The post-offering lives of equity-crowdfunded firms. Research Policy, 47(8), 1391–1404.
43. Sukmana, R., Indrawan, I. W., & Ajija, S. R. (2020). Reconsidering the viability of rural banks in Indonesia: A financial inclusion perspective. Heliyon, 6(7), e04390.
44. Testa, S., Nielsen, K. R., Bogers, M., & Cincotti, S. (2020). The role of crowdfunding in moving towards a sustainable society. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 162, 120412.
45. Troise, C., Ferreti, M., & Tani, M. (2024). Exploring the determinants of equity crowdfunding success: A configurational approach. European Management Journal, 42(1), 121–134.
46. Vismara, S. (2016). Equity retention and social network theory in equity crowdfunding. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 40(3), 503–525.
47. Wang, H., & Li, Y. (2018). Interaction between creators and backers in crowdfunding success. Journal of Business Research, 90, 318–324.
48. Xiang, D., Zhang, L., Tao, Q., Wang, Y., & Ma, S. (2021). Informational or emotional appeals in crowdfunding message strategy: An empirical investigation of backers’ support decisions. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 49(2), 280–300.
49. Zhang, W., Yan, X., & Chen, Y. (2020). Configurational path to financing performance of crowdfunding projects using fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis. Journal of Business Research, 115, 348–355.
50. Zheng, L., & Chen, Y. (2014). The role of multidimensional social capital in crowdfunding. Journal of Business Research, 67(5), 1038–1045.
51. Zupic, I., & Čater, T. (2015). Bibliometric methods in management and organization. Organizational Research Methods, 18(3), 429-472.
52. Boyack, K. W., & Klavans, R. (2014). Scientometrics, 98: 789-820.
53. Jain, N., Gat, Y., & Woolley, M. (2023). The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs): A Bibliometric Analysis to Devise Strategic Pathways for Climate Action. Sustainability, 15(2), 1139.
54. Van Eck, N. J., & Waltman, L. (2014). Visualizing bibliometric networks. In Y. Ding, R. Rousseau, & D. Wolfram (Eds.), Measuring scholarly impact: Methods and practice (pp. 285–320). Springer.
55. Weerakoon, K. P. K. (2021). State-of-the-art evaluation of the research on blockchain technology for the smart grid applications. IEEE Access, 9, 39889-39913.
56. World Bank. (2024). Crowdfunding and its impact on global financial inclusion. Retrieved from https://www.worldbank.org/crowdfunding