Introduction
Digital poverty represents one of the most paradoxical challenges in contemporary development: despite unprecedented technological advancement, substantial international investment, and extensive stakeholder engagement, billions across the Global South remain systematically excluded from digital participation (International Telecommunication Union [ITU], 2023; Ndoya & Asongu, Reference Ndoya and Asongu2024; Oughton, Comini, Foster, & Hall, Reference Oughton, Comini, Foster and Hall2022; Vimalkumar, Singh, & Sharma, Reference Vimalkumar, Singh and Sharma2021). For instance, while mobile penetration exceeds 79% among informal microenterprises in Sub-Saharan Africa and digital financial services show considerable growth potential (Girollet, Reference Girollet2024), systemic challenges continue to hinder effective technology adoption across diverse socio-economic and institutional contexts. Most governments in the Global South have implemented targeted incentives, programs, and regulations aimed at addressing digital poverty and promoting sustainable development outcomes (Bonina, Koskinen, Eaton, & Gawer, Reference Bonina, Koskinen, Eaton and Gawer2021; Dewan, Ganley, & Kraemer, Reference Dewan, Ganley and Kraemer2010; Gawer & Bonina, Reference Gawer and Bonina2024; Oughton et al., Reference Oughton, Comini, Foster and Hall2022). Yet, digital poverty persists, highlighting the complexity of digital inclusion efforts and their variability across contexts.
Digital poverty is a multidimensional form of deprivation where individuals, households, businesses, and communities lack reliable and affordable ICT infrastructure access (Subramaniam & Masron, Reference Subramaniam and Masron2024; Wentrup, Ström, & Nakamura, Reference Wentrup, Ström and Nakamura2016), digital skills for meaningful engagement with information and services (Law, Vostanis, & O’Reilly, Reference Law, Vostanis and O’Reilly2023; Matli & Ngoepe, Reference Matli and Ngoepe2022), and institutional conditions that enable sustained digital ecosystem participation (Beukes, Kirstein, Kunz, & Nagel, Reference Beukes, Kirstein, Kunz and Nagel2018; Faozanudin, Rosyadi, & Sulistiani, Reference Faozanudin, Rosyadi and Sulistiani2023; Khanra & Joseph, Reference Khanra and Joseph2019). The Global South, the focal context of this study, denotes 138 developing economies recognized by the World Academy of Sciences (TWAS, 2024), which align with the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) developing-economies classification (UNCTADstat, 2024). These economies span Africa, Latin America, and the Caribbean, most of Asia (excluding Israel, Japan, and South Korea), and Oceania (excluding Australia and New Zealand), sharing enduring structural legacies of colonial subordination and uneven world economy incorporation (Dados & Connell, Reference Dados and Connell2012) that have produced persistent deficits in infrastructure, affordability, skills, and governance that restrict meaningful digital participation (Bezuidenhout, Leonelli, Kelly, & Rappert, Reference Bezuidenhout, Leonelli, Kelly and Rappert2017; Solís, Anderson, & Rajagopalan, Reference Solís, Anderson and Rajagopalan2021).
In contrast to the Global North, studies reveal troubling coordination patterns in the Global South, where stakeholders addressing similar digital inclusion challenges remain fragmented despite geographical and thematic proximity. Girollet’s (Reference Girollet2024) eight-country Sub-Saharan African analysis shows this pattern: while 48% of firms coordinate with suppliers and 47% with customers, only 12% engage in collective ecosystem-level action. Similarly, this coordination gap persists elsewhere: Pakistani universities and government agencies fail to align despite facing identical connectivity problems affecting millions of students (Jamil & Muschert, Reference Jamil and Muschert2024); Indonesian governance achieves 75% village internet access yet remains disconnected from broader economic development (Faozanudin et al., Reference Faozanudin, Rosyadi and Sulistiani2023); and Malaysian indigenous communities achieve 96% improvement in social connectedness, yet these gains fail to extend beyond community boundaries (Horn & Gifford, Reference Horn and Gifford2022).
This systematic literature review (SLR) addresses the research question: ‘What are the key stakeholders, their challenges, and the strategies involved in fostering sustainable digital inclusion in the Global South’? We approach this question through stakeholder theory and digital ecosystems theory as complementary lenses. Stakeholder theory offers a micro-level focus on actor identification, legitimacy, and power dynamics (Freeman, Reference Freeman1984; Mitchell, Agle, & Wood, Reference Mitchell, Agle and Wood1997), while digital ecosystems theory provides a macro-level perspective on interdependencies, system-wide interactions, and architectural coordination strategies (Adner, Reference Adner2017; Jacobides, Cennamo, & Gawer, Reference Jacobides, Cennamo and Gawer2018). Taken together, these concepts provide a robust foundation for analyzing the systemic and contextual dimensions of digital poverty.
Through analysis of 122 empirical studies spanning across Asia, Africa, Latin America, and Oceania, we identify ecosystem fragmentation as a recurring phenomenon requiring theoretical advancement and practical innovation. Our analysis also identifies five primary stakeholder groups, namely government entities, private sector organizations, civil society institutions, end users, and international organizations. These stakeholders face a set of interrelated challenges and respond with a range of strategies, the effectiveness of which depends critically on coordination strategies that enable multilateral ecosystem collaboration rather than bilateral relationships alone.
This study makes the following contributions. Theoretically, we extend stakeholder theory by introducing the concept of the Ecosystem Coordination Stakeholders (ECS), a role-based stakeholder group whose salience derives from coordination capability rather than only power, urgency, or legitimacy. We also extend digital ecosystems theory by showing that effective coordination requires deliberate architectural strategies rather than assuming coordination emerges naturally as ecosystems evolve. Empirically, we provide the first systematic identification of ecosystem fragmentation across Global South contexts, documenting the disparity between bilateral coordination success and multilateral coordination failure. Practically, we offer frameworks for policy development, institutional capacity building, and implementation approaches that strengthen coordination as a capability, enabling stakeholders to strengthen ecosystem coherence across diverse institutional, economic, and cultural contexts.
This study proceeds by outlining the theoretical approaches integrating digital ecosystems and stakeholder theories, before presenting the systematic research design and overview of selected studies. We then analyze the findings and discuss theoretical and practical implications, concluding with directions for future research.
Theoretical Background
The integration of digital ecosystems theory and stakeholder theory provides a comprehensive analytical lens for understanding multi-stakeholder coordination in digital poverty contexts. Digital ecosystems theory offers a macro-level perspective for examining system structure, technological enablers, and coordination strategies, while stakeholder theory provides micro-level dimensions for understanding actor interactions, legitimacy sources, and power dynamics. Together, these theories allow us to analyze both the structural conditions that exacerbate or reduce digital poverty and the stakeholder dynamics that enable or constrain collaborative effectiveness within these contexts.
Evolving from the business ecosystem concept (Moore, Reference Moore1993, Reference Moore1996), digital ecosystems theory (Adner, Reference Adner2017; Jacobides et al., Reference Jacobides, Cennamo and Gawer2018) conceptualizes interconnected networks of stakeholders, technologies, and processes that collectively shape the ecosystem’s dynamics and capacity for value creation. This framework emphasizes interdependencies among actors, the enabling role of technology, and system-level interactions in achieving sustainability and scalability (Chaudhuri, Reference Chaudhuri2012; Chipidza & Leidner, Reference Chipidza and Leidner2019) and addressing complex societal challenges (Li, Badr, & Biennier, Reference Li, Badr and Biennier2012). Digital ecosystems theory provides a macro-level lens to analyze how multi-stakeholder coordination, technological infrastructure, and system-level dynamics influence the effectiveness of digital inclusion interventions in Global South contexts, characterized by systemic barriers such as resource constraints, socio-economic divides, and infrastructure gaps.
Originating from Freeman’s (Reference Freeman1984) work and developed through stakeholder salience analysis (Mitchell et al., Reference Mitchell, Agle and Wood1997), stakeholder theory provides analytical dimensions for understanding how different actors derive legitimacy, exercise power, and respond to urgency within collaborative arrangements. This theory emphasizes accounting for interests, power dynamics, and contributions of various stakeholders in achieving shared goals (Courtright, Reference Courtright2004; Freeman, Reference Freeman2010), enabling examination of interactions among governments, private sector entities, civil society organizations, international agencies, and end users. Stakeholder theory provides analytical tools for understanding role clarity, power-sharing arrangements, and accountability strategies in multi-stakeholder collaboration (Arakpogun, Elsahn, Nyuur, & Olan, Reference Arakpogun, Elsahn, Nyuur and Olan2020). Yet, traditional categorizations of stakeholders such as dormant, dominant, dependent, or definitive, derive salience from power, legitimacy, and urgency (Mitchell et al., Reference Mitchell, Agle and Wood1997). We suggest that these attributes may not capture coordination capability as a distinct basis of influence, limiting explanatory power in Global South contexts where stakeholders often achieve bilateral coordination but fail at ecosystem-wide collaboration.
Both digital ecosystems and stakeholder salience frameworks tend to assume that coordination either emerges naturally or is already embedded in salience attributes. As we discuss later, our review challenges this assumption by demonstrating that in Global South contexts, persistent fragmentation requires theorizing coordination capability as a distinct source of stakeholder influence and conceptualizing deliberate architectural strategies for alignment.
Research Design
To ensure methodological rigor, transparency, and replicability, this study follows the three-stage process for conducting systematic reviews as outlined by Tranfield, Denyer, and Smart (Reference Tranfield, Denyer and Smart2003) and Denyer and Tranfield (Reference Denyer, Tranfield, Buchanan and Bryman2009), illustrated in Figure 1, and draws on methodologies employed in recent SLRs published in reputable management journals (e.g., Tan, Wu, & Zhong, Reference Tan, Wu and Zhong2024; Zhang, Tavalaei, Parry, & Zhou, Reference Zhang, Tavalaei, Parry and Zhou2024).
Figure 1. Overview of the SLR process
Stage 1 – Planning the Review
The planning phase established a review panel consisting of a panel leader (first author) and two members (co-authors) to mitigate retrieval, selection, and expectancy biases (Zhang et al., Reference Zhang, Tavalaei, Parry and Zhou2024) and ensure reliable outcomes (Castañer & Oliveira, Reference Castañer and Oliveira2020; Tranfield et al., Reference Tranfield, Denyer and Smart2003). The panel leader oversaw SLR design and implementation, while members contributed to search strategy and selection criteria approval. An exploratory review informed the development of both the search strategy and selection criteria, ensuring the subsequent formal review was grounded in a comprehensive field understanding. The screening process was cross-validated by panel members, with all steps documented to maintain transparency and replicability.
Stage 2 – Search Strategy and Screening
The search strategy employed three major databases: Scopus, Web of Science (WoS), and EBSCOhost’s Business Source Complete (BSC), recognized for comprehensive coverage and relevance in systematic reviews (Lu, Papagiannidis, & Alamanos, Reference Lu, Papagiannidis and Alamanos2018; Vu, Ghadge, & Bourlakis, Reference Vu, Ghadge and Bourlakis2023; Zhang et al., Reference Zhang, Tavalaei, Parry and Zhou2024). The search utilized title, abstract, and keyword fields (TITLE-ABS-KEY), focusing on two core concepts: digital poverty and the Global South. The following search strings were employed:
• Digital Poverty: ‘digital poverty’ OR ‘digital divide’ OR ‘digital inequalit*’ OR ‘digital exclusion’ OR ‘digital gap’ OR ‘digital disparit*’ AND
• Global South Context: ‘Global South’ OR ‘developing countr*’ OR ‘developing nation*’ OR ‘low-income countr*’ OR ‘middle-income countr*’ OR ‘low – and middle-income countr*’ OR ‘LMIC*’ OR ‘emerging econom*’ OR ‘underdeveloped countr*’ OR ‘least developed countr*’ OR ‘LDC*’ OR ‘Global periphery’ OR ‘Africa’ OR ‘Sub-Saharan Africa’ OR ‘Latin America’ OR ‘Southeast Asia’ OR ‘South Asia’ OR ‘Middle East and North Africa’ OR ‘MENA’ OR ‘Pacific Islands’
No temporal constraints were imposed on the database search, ensuring the inclusion of all relevant literature up to the date of data collection (October 2024, this includes papers that were made available online prior to formal journal indexation). Rigorous screening comprised automated and manual steps. Automated screening applied filters for language (English), source type (peer-reviewed journals), document type (articles and reviews), and journal quality (ABS 2021 ranking ≥1-star), with duplicate removal through DOI matching. Manual screening followed a two-phase evaluation: (1) title and abstract review for initial relevance assessment, and (2) full-text assessment for alignment confirmation with inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Studies were included if they focused on digital poverty in the Global South, addressed digital ecosystems or related concepts, discussed digital inclusion efforts, and were empirical studies. Exclusion criteria ruled out studies exclusively on developed countries, unrelated to digital poverty and ecosystems, purely technical without socio-economic context, or non-empirical. Manual screening narrowed the pool from 390 papers, after filtering through title and abstract screening, to 195, and then through full-text screening to 122 papers as the final sample (Fig. 2).
Figure 2. Search and screening process
Stage 3 – Data Analysis: Extraction and Synthesis
Key information from papers: author(s), year, title, journal, author affiliation, industry context, geographical context, study type, method, research focus, stakeholders, challenges, strategies, key findings, and future research recommendations were extracted into Microsoft Excel. We started with a descriptive overview of selected studies (n = 122) in our SLR about methodological, geographical, and authorship aspects, to gather insights into the research landscape on digital poverty and stakeholder ecosystems in the Global South.
Thematic analysis, as outlined by Braun and Clarke (Reference Braun and Clarke2006, Reference Braun and Clarke2012, Reference Braun and Clarke2022), was utilized to identify patterns and synthesize findings, enabling structured insights into digital poverty and ecosystem stakeholders in the Global South. Studies were drawn from journals across multiple disciplines, including information systems, development studies, technology management, social sciences, and public policy, which allowed for a robust and nuanced analysis of digital poverty and ecosystem dynamics from multiple perspectives.
The data analysis builds on the theoretical background outlined above, examining digital poverty initiatives as complex multi-stakeholder systems, the contributions and benefits of different stakeholder groups, and the role of coordination strategies in enabling or constraining collaborative effectiveness across diverse Global South contexts.
Overview of Selected Studies
Geographical Research Contexts
As Figure 3 shows, the geographical analysis highlights Africa and Asia as the main regions of focus, accounting for 36.9% (45 studies) and 36.1% (44 studies), respectively. As expected, this is also reflected in terms of outlet, with higher-ranked journals (ABS 3, 4, or 4*) featuring a strong presence of studies focusing on Asia (47.6%), followed by Africa (26.2%). However, other regions remain underrepresented, particularly Latin America and Oceania.
Figure 3. Research context (region) of papers across the ABS journal rankings
Africa’s strong representation (including South Africa, Nigeria, Ghana, and Côte d’Ivoire) underscores the region’s prominence in digital development initiatives, particularly telecommunications infrastructure development and mobile money innovations. Asian representation spans diverse contexts from South Asia (India, Bangladesh, Pakistan) to East Asia (China) and Southeast Asia (Indonesia, Malaysia, Myanmar), reflecting the region’s heterogeneous development patterns and the region’s role as a testing ground for digital inclusion strategies. Latin America represents 9.0% (11 studies), focusing on countries including Brazil, Peru, Ecuador, and Mexico, with research addressing geographical barriers and indigenous community needs, while Oceania accounts for only 0.8% (1 study), reflecting Pacific Island contexts with unique geographical and infrastructure challenges.
We also found a relatively balanced distribution in terms of methodological approaches, with quantitative methods leading at 43.4% (53 studies), followed by qualitative approaches at 34.4% (42 studies), and mixed methods at 22.1% (27 studies). Finally, comparative studies between South–South and North–South contexts make up only 14.8% (18 studies), offering limited cross-regional insights into how digital inclusion dynamics vary across institutional, economic, and cultural settings.
Publication and Authorship Patterns
Publication patterns, presented in Figure 4, show most studies on digital poverty in Global South contexts are published in ABS 2 journals (leading with 57 studies), followed by ABS 3 (31) and ABS 1 (23), and very few in ABS 4* (6) and ABS 4 (5) journals. While we do not have access to how many papers on this topic are submitted relative to each journal ranking category, the results suggest that these papers rarely survive the review process of top-ranking journals. This is consistent with previous studies arguing that Global North contexts tend to dominate knowledge production and theory development (Collyer, Reference Collyer2018), especially in top-ranking journals (Wickert, Potočnik, Prashantham, Shi, & Snihur, Reference Wickert, Potočnik, Prashantham, Shi and Snihur2024).
Figure 4. Authorship of papers across the ABS journal rankings
To further explore authorship patterns by geographical location we categorized the papers in our SLR into three groups: those authored solely by researchers from Global South institutions, solely by researchers from Global North institutions, and those involving a mixture of both. Figure 5 shows that 46.7% (57 studies) are authored by Global North-affiliated researchers, while 27.9% (34 studies) come from Global South institutions, and the rest (25.4%; 31 studies) have been authored by a combination of researchers from both regions. This distribution indicates significant Global South research capacity, while also considerable Global North institutional presence in studying Global South digital poverty.
Figure 5. Authorship of papers across the research context (region) and ABS journal rankings
In ABS 4 and 4* journals, most publications are authored solely by Global North researchers (8 studies). Only three involve Global North–South collaboration, and of these, two are led by Global North authors and just one by a Global South scholar. Papers authored solely by researchers from the Global South appear predominantly in ABS 1 and 2 journals (28 studies), with a limited presence in ABS 3 journals (6 studies), and none in ABS 4 or 4* journals. The results suggest that Global South publication output is concentrated in a limited range of journals. According to Cortés, Guix, and Carbonell (Reference Cortés, Guix and Carbonell2021), systemic biases – favoring authors from English-speaking and elite institutions (mostly outside the Global South) – may be limiting broader visibility and access to the research developed in non-western contexts.
Taken together, these patterns reveal an uneven research landscape, characterized by methodological diversity but geographical concentration in Asia and Africa, along with persistent authorship imbalances between Global North and Global South scholars in top-ranked journals.
Results
Digital Poverty Characteristics in the Global South
Analysis of 122 empirical studies reveals distinct patterns of digital poverty manifestation across the Global South spanning Asia, Africa, Latin America, and Oceania. While characteristics vary by region, common patterns include infrastructure gaps, affordability constraints, and digital skill deficits (Table 1).
Table 1. Digital poverty characteristics across the Global South
In Asia, digital poverty reflects multi-layered access barriers shaped by governance capacity and geography. South Asia shows the most severe exclusion, driven by entrenched urban–rural divides and fragmented governance. Pakistan and Bangladesh exemplify this through unreliable connectivity, frequent power shortages, and unaffordable internet services that disproportionately affect students (Asadullah & Bhattacharjee, Reference Asadullah and Bhattacharjee2022; Jamil & Muschert, Reference Jamil and Muschert2024). In India, persistent digital literacy deficits limit uptake despite extensive national investments (Hussain, Gupta, & Bhardwaj, Reference Hussain, Gupta and Bhardwaj2024). East Asia presents a paradox where national-level technological progress coexists with entrenched rural–urban divides, as seen in China where rural schools lack adequate resources despite heavy state investment (Li & Hu, Reference Li and Hu2022; Xu & Tao, Reference Xu and Tao2024). In Southeast Asia, exclusion reflects geographical and cultural complexity: Malaysia’s indigenous communities face multi-layered connectivity barriers in Sarawak (Horn & Gifford, Reference Horn and Gifford2022), while Indonesia’s dispersed island geography and governance challenges fragment digital service delivery (Faozanudin et al., Reference Faozanudin, Rosyadi and Sulistiani2023).
In Africa, digital poverty emerges as the most multifaceted, shaped by infrastructure deficits, affordability issues, and historical inequalities. Nigeria and Ghana illustrate the persistence of unreliable electricity, high internet costs, and gender gaps in mobile phone ownership (Dasuki & Effah, Reference Dasuki and Effah2022; Raheem, Addo, Shaffakat, & Lunberry, Reference Raheem, Addo, Shaffakat and Lunberry2024). Uganda highlights the paradox of technological leapfrogging, where widespread mobile money adoption coexists with rural exclusion driven by limited smartphone access and digital literacy (Okello Candiya Bongomin, Akol Malinga, Manzi Amani, & Balinda, Reference Okello Candiya Bongomin, Akol Malinga, Manzi Amani and Balinda2025). In Southern Africa, South Africa demonstrates enduring school and community access inequalities rooted in apartheid legacies, despite large-scale infrastructure projects (Kennedy & Cronjé, Reference Kennedy and Cronjé2023; Shiferaw, Reference Shiferaw2024).
In Latin America, digital poverty intersects with socio-economic inequality, colonial legacies, and geography. Brazil illustrates persistent exclusion in both rural and urban contexts: farmers lack access to digital agricultural technologies, while favela residents remain excluded due to affordability and infrastructural inadequacies (de Brito et al., Reference de Brito, Do Socorro da Silva, da Mata, Vijaykumar, da Rocha, de Abreu Monteiro, Costa and Francês2018; Engås, Raja, & Neufang, Reference Engås, Raja and Neufang2023). Peru highlights indigenous exclusion, where low internet penetration is compounded by the absence of culturally and linguistically relevant digital content (López-Sánchez & Urquía-Grande, Reference López-Sánchez and Urquia-Grande2023; Prieto-Egido et al., Reference Prieto-Egido, Valladares, Muñoz, Bernuy, Simo-Reigadas, Quispetupa, Fernández and Martinez-Fernandez2020). Finally, in Oceania, Pacific Island nations represent unique small-state vulnerabilities. Fiji illustrates territory-wide exclusion rooted in geographic isolation, weak institutional capacity, and acute digital skills gaps, which were exacerbated by COVID-19 (Reddy, Chaudhary, Sharma, & Hussein, Reference Reddy, Chaudhary, Sharma and Hussein2023). Unlike continental regions, these states face systemic, nationwide capacity constraints rather than urban–rural divides.
Cross-regional patterns reveal both universal and region-specific characteristics. Infrastructure inadequacy is fundamental across all contexts, though it manifests differently: power and telecommunications shortages in South Asia; systemic infrastructure deficits in Sub-Saharan Africa; geographical barriers in Latin America; and island-wide constraints in Oceania. Affordability challenges also vary, reflecting local economic structures and market conditions. Gendered exclusion emerges across regions, intersecting with cultural and institutional norms; from systematic mobile ownership and literacy gaps in Sub-Saharan Africa to restrictions on women’s digital skill development in South Asia.
The analysis shows that digital poverty represents complex, multi-dimensional phenomena extending beyond simple technological access to encompass infrastructure, affordability, skills, cultural relevance, and institutional capacity dimensions. A key differentiation is that continental regions face entrenched urban–rural divides, while small island states face territory-wide systemic exclusion, requiring fundamentally different interventions.
Stakeholder Roles
Thematic analysis identified five primary stakeholder groups involved in addressing digital poverty and promoting digital inclusion in the Global South: government entities, private sector organizations, civil society organizations, end users, and international organizations. Each of these stakeholder groups plays distinct roles (see description in the Appendix) in shaping and executing initiatives to bridge digital poverty, and their interactions are crucial for achieving inclusion outcomes.
Government entities
Government entities are central in policy design, regulation, and infrastructure development. Their effectiveness varies by governance capacity. In China, multi-level coordination between central directives and local implementation has strengthened rural e-governance (Shou, Jia, Yu, & Wu, Reference Shou, Jia, Yu and Wu2025), while in South Asia (Jamil & Muschert, Reference Jamil and Muschert2024), as well as many other decentralized government regions, fragmented institutional frameworks have limited coherence. In Africa, regional initiatives highlight governments’ role in cross-border digital infrastructure and economic integration (Girollet, Reference Girollet2024).
Private sector organizations
Private sector actors contribute as infrastructure providers, fintech innovators, and digital service developers, with their impact often shaped by regulatory alignment and partnerships. In Ghana, fintech firms expanded women’s financial inclusion through targeted mobile solutions (Raheem et al., Reference Raheem, Addo, Shaffakat and Lunberry2024), while in Indonesia telecommunication companies balance universal service obligations with commercial viability (Harahap, Kamp, & Ubacht, Reference Harahap, Kamp and Ubacht2024). In some cases, however, technological success has outpaced coordination, as seen in Nigeria’s fragmented mobile payment ecosystem (Farinloye, Omotoye, Oginni, Moharrak, & Mogaji, Reference Farinloye, Omotoye, Oginni, Moharrak and Mogaji2024).
Civil society organizations
Civil society organizations (CSOs) often act as intermediaries between institutions and communities. Their roles range from delivering digital literacy programs (Kumi-Yeboah, Kim, & Armah, Reference Kumi‐Yeboah, Kim and Armah2023) to ensuring cultural responsiveness in service design (Horn & Gifford, Reference Horn and Gifford2022). NGOs and community-based groups often bridge institutional gaps, particularly in contexts where state capacity is weak or uneven (Dey, Babu, Rahman, Dora, & Mishra, Reference Dey, Babu, Rahman, Dora and Mishra2019).
End users
End users including students, women, rural populations, entrepreneurs, and marginalized or indigenous communities can play an active role in shaping digital inclusion outcomes. Tailored interventions, such as interactive voice response (IVR) systems in Ghana, have helped overcome gender-specific exclusion (Raheem et al., Reference Raheem, Addo, Shaffakat and Lunberry2024). Indigenous communities also show that culturally sensitive approaches can strengthen both adoption and social cohesion, as illustrated in Malaysia (Horn & Gifford, Reference Horn and Gifford2022).
International organizations
International organizations (e.g., the World Bank, International Telecommunication Union, United Nations, and regional development banks) provide funding, policy guidance, and capacity-building support, often shaping national digital inclusion agendas (Arakpogun, Whalley, Wanjiru, Elsahn, & Kummitha, Reference Arakpogun, Whalley, Wanjiru, Elsahn and Kummitha2023; Ndoya & Asongu, Reference Ndoya and Asongu2024). Their interventions are most effective when aligned with local institutional capacity and priorities, as seen in Peruvian financial inclusion programs co-funded by the Inter-American Development Bank (López-Sánchez & Urquia-Grande, Reference López-Sánchez and Urquia-Grande2023).
Overall, studies indicate that stakeholder effectiveness depends less on individual contributions and more on coordination. Successful cases such as Malaysia’s indigenous inclusion programs (Horn & Gifford, Reference Horn and Gifford2022), where end users, CSOs, and government entities collaborate, and China’s rural e-governance initiatives, where governance and implementation are closely integrated (Shou et al., Reference Shou, Jia, Yu and Wu2025), demonstrate how coherent coordination produces inclusion gains. By contrast, fragmented arrangements in Pakistan’s higher education sector (Jamil & Muschert, Reference Jamil and Muschert2024) and Nigeria’s fintech ecosystem (Farinloye et al., Reference Farinloye, Omotoye, Oginni, Moharrak and Mogaji2024) illustrate how weak coordination undermines impact. These contrasting patterns provide the foundation for analysing the challenges stakeholders face and the strategies they employ.
Challenges
As we discuss below, the literature reveals different types of challenges related to digital inclusion initiatives across the Global South. Challenges manifest differently across regions, yet share common patterns, particularly structural, procedural, and uptake-related barriers that constrain efforts in addressing digital poverty (Fig. 6).
Figure 6. Ecosystem coordination stakeholder concept
Structural Challenges
Infrastructure and connectivity
Infrastructure inadequacies emerge as fundamental barriers across all regions studied, with stakeholders reporting persistent connectivity and service delivery constraints that undermine digital inclusion programmes. Physical connectivity limitations remain particularly acute. In Pakistan, rural areas such as Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, FATA, and Gilgit Baltistan lack reliable internet infrastructure, leaving millions of students restricted to 2G access below 2Mbps (Jamil & Muschert, Reference Jamil and Muschert2024). Similarly, Malaysian indigenous communities face the absence of mobile towers, frequent outages, and poor bandwidth, where geographical isolation renders infrastructure investment technically complex and financially prohibitive (Horn & Gifford, Reference Horn and Gifford2022).
Beyond access, service reliability issues create ongoing operational barriers for both individuals and institutions. In Pakistan, recurrent electricity load shedding disrupts internet access and online learning continuity (Jamil & Muschert, Reference Jamil and Muschert2024), while rural China continues to suffer from insufficient broadband coverage and mobile base stations (Xu & Tao, Reference Xu and Tao2024). In India, weak telecommunication systems further undermine financial inclusion and agricultural information access (Rana, Luthra, & Rao, Reference Rana, Luthra and Rao2020; Venkatesh & Sykes, Reference Venkatesh and Sykes2013). Finally, institutional coordination challenges compound infrastructure deficits. Where multiple agencies must align, fragmented governance slows implementation and reduces the effectiveness of digital service delivery. Indian cases highlight how poor coordination between government bodies delays infrastructure expansion (Khanra & Joseph, Reference Khanra and Joseph2019), while in Pakistan, universities receive limited ICT support from government agencies (Barra, Grimaldi, Muazzam, Troisi, & Visvizi, Reference Barra, Grimaldi, Muazzam, Troisi and Visvizi2024).
Economic barriers and affordability
Economic barriers present persistent constraints on stakeholder participation in digital inclusion initiatives, cutting across income levels and institutional contexts. Affordability issues affect both individuals and organizations. In Pakistan, high internet service costs render access unaffordable for many middle- and low-income students (Jamil & Muschert, Reference Jamil and Muschert2024), while teachers often subsidize online teaching from their own resources due to institutional budget limitations (Barra et al., Reference Barra, Grimaldi, Muazzam, Troisi and Visvizi2024). In Bangladesh, resource scarcity similarly restricts the capacity of education and healthcare stakeholders to adopt new technologies (Asadullah & Bhattacharjee, Reference Asadullah and Bhattacharjee2022; Khanom & Miah, Reference Khanom and Miah2020).
Market-related constraints further inhibit technology deployment and sustainability. High device and service costs relative to GDP and purchasing power limit uptake across Sub-Saharan Africa, where currency volatility compounds affordability challenges (Quansah, Reference Quansah2024). Limited government budgets and weak investment capacity also slow digital expansion in the region (Girollet, Reference Girollet2024; Ndoya & Asongu, Reference Ndoya and Asongu2024). Lastly, historical and structural economic divides exacerbate these barriers. In South Africa, as in many other Global South countries, persistent inequalities continue to restrict access for marginalized populations, constraining both consumer purchasing power and institutional investment capacity (Shiferaw, Reference Shiferaw2024).
Technology design and operational continuity
Technology design and implementation factors present significant barriers to effective digital inclusion across diverse contexts. Design-context mismatches undermine programme effectiveness. In Pakistan, online learning platforms require high-speed internet that rural infrastructure cannot support (Jamil & Muschert, Reference Jamil and Muschert2024), while in Nigeria, mobile apps suffer from crashes and unreliable QR systems, discouraging sustained use despite high initial adoption (Farinloye et al., Reference Farinloye, Omotoye, Oginni, Moharrak and Mogaji2024).
Operational continuity and maintenance challenges also compromise long-term viability. Cross-regional Bottom of the Pyramid analysis shows that many African firms face delays in hardware procurement and shortages of local technical expertise, leaving them dependent on costly external support (Quansah, Reference Quansah2024). Finally, integration and compatibility issues constrain scalability. Indonesia’s e-governance platforms, designed without adequate sensitivity to archipelagic diversity, struggle with maintenance and service continuity across dispersed populations (Faozanudin, Rosyadi, & Sulistiani, Reference Faozanudin, Rosyadi and Sulistiani2023).
Procedural Challenges
Institutional barriers and governance
Institutional barriers create systemic difficulties that undermine coordination and limit programme effectiveness across governance contexts. Inter-agency misalignment is a recurrent challenge. In China, e-governance adoption is weakened by discrepancies between central directives and local government capacity, resulting in inconsistent service delivery (Shou et al., Reference Shou, Jia, Yu and Wu2025). In Indonesia, regulatory gaps constrain private sector participation and leave local authorities with fragmented responsibilities (Faozanudin et al., Reference Faozanudin, Rosyadi and Sulistiani2023). Similar patterns are observed in India, where coordination failures between telecommunications and financial oversight bodies hinder the rollout of digital payment systems (Rana et al., Reference Rana, Luthra and Rao2020).
Regulatory framework limitations further compound these coordination challenges. In Malaysia, federal–state misalignment generates gaps in addressing the needs of indigenous communities (Horn & Gifford, Reference Horn and Gifford2022). Finally, institutional capacity constraints restrict implementation quality. In Iran, international isolation reduces opportunities for cross-sector coordination (Torabi, Rezvani, Hall, & Allam, Reference Torabi, Rezvani, Hall and Allam2023), while in Pakistan, limited institutional support for faculty digital training diminishes the quality of online education (Jamil & Muschert, Reference Jamil and Muschert2024).
Digital literacy and skills
Digital literacy deficiencies create significant capacity constraints, limiting stakeholder participation in digital inclusion initiatives across both educational and professional contexts. Foundational skills gaps remain a major barrier. In Pakistan, many rural students lack basic competencies for operating laptops, navigating virtual learning systems, or using online meeting platforms (Jamil & Muschert, Reference Jamil and Muschert2024), while faculty members struggle with teaching platforms such as Zoom, Moodle, and Blackboard. Similar gaps emerge elsewhere: Indian farmers often lack the digital competencies required to use agricultural information systems (Venkatesh & Sykes, Reference Venkatesh and Sykes2013), while financial service beneficiaries require specialized training to adopt digital payment systems (Hussain et al., Reference Hussain, Gupta and Bhardwaj2024; Rana et al., Reference Rana, Luthra and Rao2020).
Gender-based disparities further exacerbate exclusion. In Pakistani higher education, male faculty are more likely to pursue digital training, while female faculty face barriers linked to domestic responsibilities (Jamil & Muschert, Reference Jamil and Muschert2024). Contextual barriers also undermine programme effectiveness. Among Malaysian indigenous communities, language barriers and culturally misaligned training methods reduce acceptance and uptake (Horn & Gifford, Reference Horn and Gifford2022). At the capability-building level, limitations in training systems restrict scalability. In Ghana, rural digital skills training remains underdeveloped and support systems are inadequate (Kumi‐Yeboah et al., Reference Kumi‐Yeboah, Kim and Armah2023), while firms across the region frequently lack the technical expertise required to manage and maintain digital systems effectively (Quansah, Reference Quansah2024).
Uptake Challenges
Cultural and social dynamics constrain participation in digital inclusion initiatives, shaping both acceptance and effectiveness across community contexts. Traditional value conflicts frequently limit adoption. In Pakistan and Bangladesh, women’s technology access and use are restricted by domestic expectations and patriarchal structures (Asadullah & Bhattacharjee, Reference Asadullah and Bhattacharjee2022; Jamil & Muschert, Reference Jamil and Muschert2024). Cultural and linguistic oversight creates additional barriers that further constrain the usability and effectiveness of digital solutions. Malaysian indigenous communities note that technologies are developed without reference to traditional knowledge systems (Horn & Gifford, Reference Horn and Gifford2022), while Ghana’s IVR systems offer only limited language options, narrowing usability (Raheem et al., Reference Raheem, Addo, Shaffakat and Lunberry2024).
Generational differences also shape uptake. In rural China, older populations in sectors such as education and governance show a preference for traditional service delivery and lower trust in digital alternatives (Li & Hu, Reference Li and Hu2022; Shou et al., Reference Shou, Jia, Yu and Wu2025). Concerns over community autonomy further reduce acceptance of external interventions. Among Malaysia’s indigenous communities, resistance stems from fears that digital technologies undermine cultural preservation, as traditional communication patterns are seen as incompatible with digital norms (Horn & Gifford, Reference Horn and Gifford2022). Social dynamics similarly influence adoption. In Iran’s tourism industry, conservative groups opposed rapid smart technology development, with governments described as ‘not in favor of fast and free development of smart technologies’ due to what researchers call ‘specific cultural values,’ though these are not clearly defined (Torabi et al., Reference Torabi, Rezvani, Hall and Allam2023: 3). Finally, entrenched administrative practices can reinforce resistance. In Indonesian villages, traditional governance norms and limited digital literacy (71.6% of government staff lack basic computer skills) sustain reliance on established methods over digital services (Faozanudin et al., Reference Faozanudin, Rosyadi and Sulistiani2023).
Strategies
The literature reveals key strategies that stakeholders employ to address the above challenges and promote digital inclusion across the Global South. As we explain below, while strategy effectiveness varies across different contexts and level of stakeholder involvement, their interactions highlight the multi-dimensional nature of digital poverty and stakeholder efforts toward sustainable digital inclusion (Fig. 6).
Structural Strategies
Infrastructure development and connectivity enhancement
Government-led infrastructure strategies have been central to narrowing digital divides. In China, rural e-governance programmes that combined infrastructure expansion, regulatory fee reductions, and mobile adoption promotion produced significant improvements in ICT utilization (Chen, Lin, & Lai, Reference Chen, Lin and Lai2010; Shou et al., Reference Shou, Jia, Yu and Wu2025). Complementing these state-driven efforts, community-centered approaches stress cultural alignment and participatory design. In Malaysia, indigenous communities reported a 96% increase in social connectedness following locally driven ICT initiatives, with family communication frequency rising by 36% (Horn & Gifford, Reference Horn and Gifford2022).
Hybrid strategies also demonstrate effectiveness in complex contexts. In Indonesia, archipelagic infrastructure initiatives (balancing central oversight with regional coordination) extended internet access to 75% of villages, with 70.7% achieving good signal quality despite geographic constraints (Faozanudin et al., Reference Faozanudin, Rosyadi and Sulistiani2023). The literature also highlights the importance of service quality alongside infrastructure provision. Liu and Wang (Reference Liu and Wang2020) show that in areas where infrastructure was present but quality remained low, over half of mobile subscribers did not use mobile internet, demonstrating that access alone is insufficient for meaningful inclusion.
Economic and financial inclusion
Stakeholders use financing mechanisms and economic models to overcome affordability barriers and make digital technologies more viable for excluded populations. Subsidy and financing coordination can balance affordability with commercial sustainability. In Peru, financial inclusion initiatives leveraged mobile money accounts to reduce reliance on cash while promoting digital financial literacy through training programmes delivered in partnership with microfinance institutions and technology providers (López-Sánchez & Urquia-Grande, Reference López-Sánchez and Urquia-Grande2023).
Regional financial integration addresses market fragmentation through cross-border coordination. In Sub-Saharan Africa, initiatives spanning eight countries – Senegal, Ghana, Nigeria, Rwanda, Kenya, Tanzania, Mozambique, and South Africa – expanded mobile phone ownership to 79% of informal microenterprises by harmonizing digital financial services across borders (Girollet, Reference Girollet2024). Market adaptation strategies also accommodate local economic conditions through innovative financing models. In Ghana and Nigeria, technology providers introduced flexible payment schedules, technology sharing, and low-cost solutions to reflect irregular income patterns, thereby improving affordability and long-term sustainability (Quansah, Reference Quansah2024).
Procedural Strategies
Institutional strengthening and governance
Stakeholders use governance and policy measures to overcome institutional barriers and improve coordination, as institutional fragmentation demands stronger governance frameworks. Multi-level policy approaches align central directives with local implementation capacity. In China, coordinated strategies linking central support with local government capacity building produced significant improvements in rural e-governance ICT utilization (Shou et al., Reference Shou, Jia, Yu and Wu2025).
Culturally responsive approaches also strengthen digital inclusion by respecting traditional leadership structures while expanding state service delivery. In Malaysia, institutional strategies combine federal and state agency coordination with indigenous leadership participation, preserving community autonomy in technology adoption decisions while broadening government outreach (Horn & Gifford, Reference Horn and Gifford2022). Hybrid approaches further enhance accessibility by accommodating varied digital literacy levels. In Egypt, governance strategies integrate offline and online service delivery channels, enabling citizens to choose between traditional methods and digital platforms; while only 13.4% adopted online services, multichannel access ensured inclusivity for the broader population (Reddick, Abdelsalam, & Elkadi, Reference Reddick, Abdelsalam and Elkadi2012).
Capacity building and digital literacy
Systematic skills development through multi-level training frameworks that link educational institutions, government agencies, and sector-specific actors help to address digital literacy gaps and expand capacity. In India, agricultural capacity-building programmes showed that social networks accounted for 39% of variance in technology use, highlighting the role of community-based diffusion. In Costa Rica, the One Laptop Per Child initiative integrated teacher training, infrastructure provision, and curriculum reform, resulting in measurable improvements in classroom computer use and learning outcomes (Meza-Cordero, Reference Meza‐Cordero2017).
Targeted demographic approaches have also proven effective in addressing exclusion patterns through specialized interventions. In Ghana, financial literacy programmes using Interactive Voice Response (IVR) and tailored to low-income women achieved 79% initial engagement and 44% sustained use when delivered in local languages (Raheem et al., Reference Raheem, Addo, Shaffakat and Lunberry2024). Lastly, assessment-driven strategies strengthen programme design by identifying differentiated training needs. In the Pacific Islands, the Digital Literacy Scale provided baseline measurements that informed tailored training pathways (Reddy et al., Reference Reddy, Chaudhary, Sharma and Hussein2023).
Uptake Strategies
Partnership and multi-stakeholder collaboration
Stakeholders employ collaborative frameworks to pool complementary capacities and pursue shared digital inclusion objectives. Cross-sector partnerships combine technical expertise, regulatory authority, and local knowledge. In Nigeria, coordinated efforts between technology companies and government transportation agencies improved urban transport services, generating over 100,000 downloads on Google Play and a 3.8 rating on Apple’s App Store. These outcomes were supported by awareness campaigns, user feedback mechanisms, and integration of mobile payment platforms with transport providers (Farinloye et al., Reference Farinloye, Omotoye, Oginni, Moharrak and Mogaji2024).
Regional integration partnerships address common challenges and market fragmentation through cross-border collaboration. In Sub-Saharan Africa, coordinated regional initiatives have demonstrated the value of scale, with joint efforts across multiple countries fostering entrepreneurship and technology adoption (Girollet, Reference Girollet2024). Multi-stakeholder development partnerships further enhance capacity by integrating government, private sector, and community actors. In Iran’s smart tourism sector, cooperation between government agencies, NGOs, and charities facilitated villagers’ access to digital technologies while implementing training programmes that built local capacity for tourism development (Torabi et al., Reference Torabi, Rezvani, Hall and Allam2023).
Innovation and technology appropriateness
Stakeholders adopt technology adaptation and development strategies to ensure contextual appropriateness and cultural relevance, which favors uptake. Culturally responsive innovation facilitates technological advancement while respecting traditional governance structures, as contextual fit is critical for long-term sustainability. In Peru, Small Rural Operator models tailored to indigenous communities extended 3G mobile services to six Amazonian communities, achieving 27% penetration across the target areas (Prieto-Egido et al., Reference Prieto-Egido, Valladares, Muñoz, Bernuy, Simo-Reigadas, Quispetupa, Fernández and Martinez-Fernandez2020). Community-centered technology development further highlights the importance of participatory decision-making. In Malaysia, indigenous communities maintained autonomy in adoption decisions while benefiting from improved connectivity and access to digital services (Horn & Gifford, Reference Horn and Gifford2022).
Sector-specific adaptations also help to address disparities in scale and market connectivity. In Brazil, precision agricultural technologies were redesigned for smallholders, supported by digital platforms that linked farmers directly to urban markets (Engås et al., Reference Engås, Raja and Neufang2023).
Overall, the results demonstrate that strategy effectiveness depends less on single interventions and more on multi-dimensional integration. Successful examples such as Ghana’s IVR (79% engagement), Malaysia’s indigenous ICT projects (96% social connectedness), and China’s e-governance (significant ICT uptake) contrast with cases where adoption metrics (e.g., Nigeria’s Cowry app) masked sustainability challenges. This highlights the need for adaptive, comprehensive, and context-specific strategies combining infrastructure, capacity building, financial inclusion, governance, collaboration, and innovation. Crucially, such strategies must deliberately embed coordination strategies, otherwise ecosystem fragmentation persists.
Discussion
Ecosystem Fragmentation
Despite major technological progress and investment, billions in the Global South remain excluded from digital participation (Ndoya & Asongu, Reference Ndoya and Asongu2024; Vimalkumar et al., Reference Vimalkumar, Singh and Sharma2021; ITU, 2023). Drawing on 122 empirical studies across Asia, Africa, Latin America, and Oceania, our analysis identifies ecosystem fragmentation as a fundamental barrier to addressing this exclusion. We highlight five key stakeholder groups – governments, private sector actors, civil society institutions, end users, and international organizations – whose efforts are shaped by interrelated challenges and whose strategies depend critically on multilateral coordination rather than bilateral relationships alone.
Unlike the Global North, the Global South is shaped by institutional voids, resource scarcity, and cultural heterogeneity (Asadullah & Bhattacharjee, Reference Asadullah and Bhattacharjee2022; Ndoya & Asongu, Reference Ndoya and Asongu2024; Reddy et al., Reference Reddy, Chaudhary, Sharma and Hussein2023). These factors exacerbate the fragmentation of effort, which manifests differently across sub-regions. In Pakistan, universities and government agencies fail to coordinate despite addressing identical connectivity challenges affecting millions of students (Jamil & Muschert, Reference Jamil and Muschert2024). In Indonesia, archipelagic governance has achieved village-level gains (with 75% internet access) that yet remain disconnected from broader digital ecosystem development (Faozanudin et al., Reference Faozanudin, Rosyadi and Sulistiani2023). In Malaysia, indigenous communities report a 96% increase in social connectedness through local ICT initiatives, yet these benefits remain confined within specific communities and fail to extend across stakeholder boundaries (Horn & Gifford, Reference Horn and Gifford2022).
Our results also show that strategies vary across regions. In South Asia, coordination must address complex multi-layered institutional frameworks. East Asian centralized models require bridging urban–rural divides, while Southeast Asian contexts demand culturally sensitive approaches that account for geographic and ethnic diversity. In Sub-Saharan Africa, resource constraints and institutional weaknesses necessitate multi-dimensional coordination, whereas in Latin America, strategies must respect indigenous autonomy while addressing geographic fragmentation. Taken together, these variations highlight that effective strategies depend on ecosystem design and governance sensitive to institutional, economic, and cultural contexts – balancing global expertise with local knowledge, external resources with community autonomy, and technological advancement with cultural appropriateness. Ultimately, the issue is less about commitment than about the capacity to coordinate effectively.
Theoretical Contributions
This study contributes to both stakeholder theory and digital ecosystem theory. First, we extend stakeholder theory by introducing the concept of Ecosystem Coordination Stakeholders (ECS) (Fig. 6), a role-based stakeholder group whose salience derives from coordination capability rather than only power, legitimacy, or urgency (Mitchell et al., Reference Mitchell, Agle and Wood1997). Our analysis suggests that existing salience frameworks overlook coordination capability as a distinct source of stakeholder influence. The tri-dimensional view of strategies (structural, procedural, outcome) provides the empirical grounding for extending stakeholder salience theory. It clarifies how ECS actors can derive relevance by bridging gaps and aligning stakeholders’ efforts so that outcomes translate into sustained inclusion.
Unlike traditional categories (e.g., dormant, discretionary, dominant, dependent, definitive stakeholders) defined by attributes or proximity (Freeman, Reference Freeman1984; Mitchell et al., Reference Mitchell, Agle and Wood1997), ECS denotes a role that existing actors may assume when they align fragmented stakeholders. We suggest that in this role, (1) legitimacy can flow from convening authority and the ability to align diverse actors, (2) power can stem from network position and brokerage rather than direct resource control, and (3) urgency can reflect ecosystem-wide needs for coherence. This extends stakeholder theory by proposing coordination capability as an additional basis of salience. In doing so, we also speak to broader stakeholder theory debates on how influence is constituted (Bundy, Shropshire, & Buchholtz, Reference Bundy, Shropshire and Buchholtz2013; Donaldson & Preston, Reference Donaldson and Preston1995).
Second, our findings advance digital ecosystems theory by challenging the assumption that coordination emerges naturally through ecosystem evolution (Adner, Reference Adner2017; Jacobides, Cennamo, & Gawer, Reference Jacobides, Cennamo and Gawer2018). Evidence across Global South studies shows that fragmentation persists despite the presence of different stakeholders and technology availability, suggesting that coordination requires deliberate architectural strategies. Beyond infrastructure development and connectivity enhancement, these strategies should include capacity building and digital literacy, economic and financial inclusion, institutional strengthening and governance, partnership and multi-stakeholder collaboration, and innovation and technology appropriateness. We therefore propose that digital ecosystems require specialized coordination architecture, within which Ecosystem Coordination Stakeholders act as architects who design, facilitate, and maintain strategies that align diverse actors, enable coherence, and ensure systemic effectiveness. In doing so, we frame coordination as a specialized institutional capability, not merely an emergent outcome, with significant implications for ecosystem design and governance in the Global South.
Implications for Management and Policy
Empirical evidence across our sample reveals stark contrasts between contexts where fragmentation persists and those where dedicated coordination strategies successfully bridge stakeholder boundaries. Ghana’s IVR system illustrates successful coordination, achieving 79% women engagement and 44% sustained use through design features such as callback capabilities, local language support (customization to Twi), and weekend scheduling (Raheem et al., Reference Raheem, Addo, Shaffakat and Lunberry2024). Malaysia’s indigenous inclusion programmes, where end users, CSOs, and government collaborate (Horn & Gifford, Reference Horn and Gifford2022), and China’s rural e-governance initiatives, which closely integrate governance and implementation (Shou et al., Reference Shou, Jia, Yu and Wu2025), also show that coherent coordination, combining bottom-up participation with top-down support, drives inclusion gains. These design features worked because coordination linked financial institutions, technology providers, and community stakeholders to integrate capacity building, financial inclusion, and technology appropriateness.
In contrast, Nigeria’s Cowry mobile payment system illustrates fragmentation. Despite technological sophistication and user adoption success – achieving over 100,000 downloads and a 3.8 Apple App Store rating – a lack of coordination between app developers, transportation authorities, payment infrastructure providers, and customer support systems left users dependent on physical terminals (Farinloye et al., Reference Farinloye, Omotoye, Oginni, Moharrak and Mogaji2024). The contrast highlights key management insight: sustainable digital inclusion depends not on technological sophistication or individual stakeholder competency alone, but on dedicated coordination capability that enables multilateral ecosystem integration across institutional, economic, and cultural environments.
For policy, three implications follow. First, frameworks should not assume coordination will emerge naturally but should institutionalize Ecosystem Coordination Stakeholder roles to address developmental and market objectives simultaneously. Second, institutional capacity-building should support coordination specialization as a professional competency requiring training, resources, and legitimacy. Third, implementation strategies should incorporate coordination architecture by identifying ECS actors, establishing accountability mechanisms, and embedding adaptive feedback loops to ensure systemic effectiveness in diverse contexts.
Future Research Directions
This systematic review identified critical understudied areas of research that require further investigation to address persistent and emerging challenges in addressing digital poverty and digital inclusion in the Global South. To begin, a key lesson is that future research on digital poverty in the Global South must broaden its geographical scope beyond Asia and Africa as little is known about other contexts. Greater attention to South–South comparative studies is also needed to enable knowledge exchange, as potential effective responses to similar challenges remain invisible to many despite geographical and thematic proximity. Finally, while publication output from the Global South is increasing, it remains underrepresented in top-ranked journals; ABS 1 and 2 outlets are thus essential to ensure relevant insights are captured. We identified four overarching areas in need of further exploration and developed recommendations that build on insights from this review, focusing on stakeholder dynamics, context-specific challenges, and sustainability considerations.
Recommendation 1: Investigating the Digital Gender Divide and Intersectional Stakeholder Exclusion
Gender remains a persistent axis of inequality, yet its intersection with stakeholder ecosystem roles is insufficiently studied. Studies highlight layered exclusions for women arising from socio-cultural norms, institutional barriers, and domestic responsibilities (Jamil & Muschert, Reference Jamil and Muschert2024; Shiferaw, Reference Shiferaw2024). These disparities shape participation across stakeholder groups, and across regions such as Sub-Saharan Africa (Kennedy & Cronjé, Reference Kennedy and Cronjé2023), South Asia (Srivastava & Shainesh, Reference Srivastava and Shainesh2015), and Southeast Asia (Horn & Gifford, Reference Horn and Gifford2022). Future research should adopt intersectional frameworks accounting for compounding factors of age, class, ethnicity, and geography. Key questions include: How do gendered constraints vary across stakeholder ecosystem positions? How do cultural contexts mediate women’s participation across regions? Methodological innovations blending quantitative mapping and qualitative insights can help uncover structural constraints and highlight women’s leadership roles in digital ecosystems.
Recommendation 2: Exploring Bottom of the Pyramid (BOP) Ecosystem Innovation and Stakeholder Adaptation
BOP contexts pose distinct structural challenges including extreme affordability constraints, infrastructural deficits, and weak institutional capacity that limit conventional digital inclusion models (Ndoya & Asongu, Reference Ndoya and Asongu2024; Raheem et al., Reference Raheem, Addo, Shaffakat and Lunberry2024). Future research should examine how coordination strategies function when market incentives are absent. What role do intermediary organizations play in bridging commercial and developmental objectives? How can business models achieve sustainability and promote equity? Particular attention should be given to shared infrastructure, platform co-ownership, and frugal innovation, alongside policy frameworks that support scaling without dependency.
Recommendation 3: Developing Multi-Country Digitalization Impact Studies with Standardized Frameworks
Most studies remain country-specific, constraining comparative learning and Global South knowledge exchange. Few adopt cross-national designs with consistent indicators, limiting external validity. Future research should prioritize developing standardized yet culturally adaptive frameworks to evaluate digitalization impacts. Key questions include how coordination effectiveness and ecosystem maturity shape outcomes. Longitudinal designs are needed to capture intended and unintended consequences over time, while participatory monitoring can ensure contextual fit. Mixed-methods approaches will be essential to validate cross-regional comparability.
Recommendation 4: Investigating Ecosystem and Technology Sector Coordination for Sustainable Digital Inclusion
Coordination across stakeholders remains a critical challenge, particularly in Global South ecosystems characterized by institutional fragmentation, cultural plurality, and technological disparities. Future research should examine how specialized coordination stakeholders can be developed, legitimized, and institutionalized, with emphasis on technology sector actors such as platform developers and IT providers, who are under-theorized but central. Key questions include: How do institutional and cultural contexts shape legitimacy for coordination stakeholders? What strategies develop coordination specialization that is both technically competent and culturally responsive? How can digital solutions embed participatory design and accountability mechanisms? Research should explore business and financing models that balance coordination value creation with sustainability.
Limitations
Despite the recommendations above, this review acknowledges several limitations. First, our analysis is constrained by the availability and quality of published research, potentially under-representing informal coordination strategies, traditional governance approaches, and community-based innovations that operate outside academic documentation. Second, reliance on peer-reviewed literature may create temporal lags, excluding recent practices not yet published. Third, some regions remain underrepresented in the literature, particularly the Pacific Islands and parts of the Middle East, which may limit generalizability across the Global South. Fourth, focusing on English-language publications may exclude valuable insights from non-English traditions in Latin America, Africa, and Asia. Finally, while the proposed framework of ecosystem coordination stakeholder group is grounded in empirical synthesis, its practical effectiveness requires validation through longitudinal fieldwork and stakeholder engagement.
Addressing these limitations will advance both theory and practice by enabling more inclusive and context-sensitive approaches to digital inclusion.
Conclusion
Through a systematic literature review of stakeholder roles, challenges, and strategies within digital ecosystems, this study sheds light on the paradox of the continued exclusion of billions in the Global South despite substantial investment and initiatives. Digital poverty persists not for lack of commitment, but because of fragmentation, i.e. weak coordination. Addressing it requires deliberate ecosystem design that involves infrastructure, skills, finance, governance, collaboration, and context-appropriate innovation.
Drawing on Global South studies, we introduce the concept of Ecosystem Coordination Stakeholders (ECS), advancing stakeholder theory by framing coordination capability as a distinct form of salience, and extending digital ecosystem theory by recasting coordination as a deliberately constructed institutional capability rather than a mere emergent outcome.
Our findings also offer practical and policy implications. Success cases illustrate clear examples of how and why coordination worked, while cases of failure clarify how sustainable digital inclusion depends not on technological sophistication or individual stakeholder competency alone, but on dedicated coordination capability that enables multilateral ecosystem integration across institutional, economic, and cultural environments. We call for frameworks that institutionalize coordination, balance global and local dynamics, and design adaptive architectures for inclusion.
Our study highlights an imbalanced research landscape: diverse in methods yet geographically concentrated in Asia and Africa, and marked by ongoing disparities in authorship and journal visibility between Global North and Global South scholars. Addressing these asymmetries is essential to building a more representative evidence base to inform both theory and practice, with significant potential to reveal new opportunities for knowledge production and exchange. Finally, beyond digital inclusion, these insights are relevant to other complex challenges such as climate change, poverty alleviation, and institutional strengthening, all of which depend on effective multi-stakeholder coordination.
Appendix. Stakeholder group, key stakeholders, and roles
Fred Ofori (f.ofori@surrey.ac.uk) is a postgraduate researcher in international business and strategy at Surrey Business School, University of Surrey, UK. His research focuses on digital poverty and sustainable development in the Global South. He examines how actors within the digital ecosystem collaborate to promote sustainable digital inclusion and foster more equitable digital futures.
Stelvia Matos (s.matos@surrey.ac.uk) is a professor of sustainable innovation at the Centre for Social Innovation, Surrey Business School, University of Surrey, UK. Her research examines how social, environmental, and economic factors interact to shape innovation, entrepreneurial behavior, and policy. She is actively engaged in research concerned with emerging economies, poverty reduction and inequality, sustainable development innovation, innovation for social inclusion, and sustainable supply chains.
Mahdi Tavalaei (m.tavalaei@surry.ac.uk) is a senior lecturer at Surrey Business School. His research centers on the intersection of strategy and the digital economy. He studies competitive strategy and governance mechanisms in digital platform ecosystems. He also examines how emerging technologies, including blockchain and AI, shape value creation, new business models, and market dynamics.
Open access
