Must Reast and Follow Review

16814835, 2022, 4, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/isd2.12213 by Zimbabwe Hinari NPL, Wiley Online Library on [29/10/2022].
See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Received: 1 December 2021 Revised: 12 January 2022 Accepted: 13 January 2022
DOI: 10.1002/isd2.12213
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Affordances of digital platforms in sub-Saharan Africa:

An analytical review
Olawande Daramola | Ernest Etim
Department of Information Technology, Cape

Peninsula University of Technology, Abstract
Cape Town, South Africa The proliferation of digital platforms in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) has increased job
Correspondence opportunities for informal businesses. However, the technological affordance of digital
Olawande Daramola, Department of platforms in SSA has received very little attention in literature review. This paper pre-
Information Technology, Cape Peninsula
University of Technology, P. O Box 8000, sents an analytical review of the technological affordances of digital platforms in SSA.
Cape Town, South Africa. We adopted a systematic literature review methodology that entailed gathering evi-
Email: daramolaj@cput.ac.za
dence from relevant literature and digital platforms in three countries in SSA
(South Africa, Nigeria, and Kenya). Three research questions focusing on (i) critical issues
of discussion on digital platforms in SSA and their distribution; (ii) understanding the
technological affordances of digital platforms in SSA; and (iii) assessing the extent to
which the technological affordances digital platforms can address the challenges of the
informal sector in SSA drove the investigation. The study developed an affordances
criteria framework, the first of its kind, to evaluate digital platforms affordances in SSA.
Our findings revealed the key topics that have gained researchers' attention so far and
digital platforms distribution in SSA. We also found that most digital platforms in SSA
currently lack affordances that support multimodal interface and native language con-
tents, limiting their accessibility to persons with minimal digital literacy. Most platforms
also lack support for public/private partnerships. The lack of critical affordances that
match the profile of the informal sector in SSA makes existing digital platforms incapable
of addressing many critical challenges of the informal sector. These challenges include
low literacy levels, minimal/lack of government support, lack of electricity or expensive
power supply, expensive internet connectivity, and health and safety issues. However,
existing digital platforms can reasonably address the absence of social protection, lack of
formalization, and poor operational infrastructure. As a contribution, this paper offers a
new perspective on the technological affordances of digital platforms in SSA. It also pro-
vides insight into the imperatives for designing inclusive and accessible digital platforms
for the informal sector in SSA.
KEYWORDS
affordances, digital platform, digital platforms, gig economy, informal sector, informal sector,
platform economy, sharing economy
This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium,
provided the original work is properly cited.
© 2022 The Authors. The Electronic Journal of Information Systems in Developing Countries published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Electron j inf syst dev ctries. 2022;88:e12213. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/isd2 1 of 21

https://doi.org/10.1002/isd2.12213
16814835, 2022, 4, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/isd2.12213 by Zimbabwe Hinari NPL, Wiley Online Library on [29/10/2022]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
2 of 21 DARAMOLA AND ETIM
1 | I N T RO DU CT I O N
The growth of internet-enabled smartphones has made digital media the pre-eminent communication and marketing tool for vendors targeting
global and local markets where on-demand services are increasing daily. Internet-enabled smartphones grew to about 2.5 billion in 2016, projec-
ted to rise to 3.5 billion in 2021 (O'Dea, 2020). Typical concentrations of smartphone growth have occurred in China, India, and the USA. In addi-
tion, the use and penetration of smartphones in sub-Saharan Africa are increasing despite the “digital divide” between developed and developing
economies. The growing dependence of human activities on social media and web-portal technology has led to a new business model called the
“platform economy”. Different terms such as “the creative economy”, “the gig economy”, “the sharing economy”, “the peer economy” have been
used to qualify the platform economy (Deloitte, 2018).
In this article, we use the term “platform economy”. The platform economy entails the business transactions between service providers/gig
workers and customers, facilitated and mediated by a digital platform (Anwar & Graham, 2021; Duszynski, 2021; Rossotto et al., 2018;
Srnicek, 2017). Technology has become the driver for the platform economy, facilitating the mobility of many employees. With the proliferation
of computing, smartphones, apps, and online payment systems, most employees tend to market themselves, perform work and receive payments
without office occupancy or a job site visit (Anwar & Graham, 2021; Duszynski, 2021).
Many companies have adopted a platform business model globally, which relies solely on digital platforms to match the supply and demand
for labor. The leading companies globally, Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, Alphabet, and Netflix, are all platform companies (Bonina et al., 2021;
Cusumano et al., 2019). According to Katta et al. (2020), the algorithmically apportioned and managed employment model peculiar to the platform
economy has facilitated its applicability in broader economic activities such as ridesharing, delivery, domestic work, deep cleaning, crowdsourcing,
and general freelancing.
In recent years, there has been a proliferation of digital platforms in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) countries. According to Ng'weno and
Porteous (2018), digital platforms are a potential solution to the problems of informality in SSA. The issues that pertain to the digital platforms in
SSA such as adoption, business/enterprise modeling regulation, impact, adoption, access and quality, value creation, opportunity; unionization,
worker rights, and remuneration, regulation, micro-providership, techniques for match-making have also received the attention of researchers
(Penu, 2021). However, so far, the technological affordances of digital platforms and their suitability to address some of the challenges of the
informal sector of SSA have received minimal attention.
Affordances describe the possibilities an object/environment affords specific user groups (Gibson, 1978). Affordances exist in relations
between human actors and the material characteristics of technology objects (Gibson, 1978; Treem & Leonardi, 2013). Evans et al. (2017) posit
that affordances explain the dynamic roles digital technologies play in the platform economy by integrating the nature of design with the specific-
ity of use and application. Although digital platforms potentially aid the informal sector, not much has been done to foster an understanding of
the affordances and technical requirements digital platforms must satisfy to meet the informal sector needs.
This paper aims to analyze the technological affordances of digital platforms in SSA countries to assess their potentials in addressing
informal sector challenges. As a contribution, this paper offers an additional perspective to the ongoing discussion on digital platforms and
the platform economy in SSA. Another contribution is a first attempt to develop formal criteria for evaluating the technical requirements of
digital platforms in SSA to understand the optimal design considerations for digital platforms to meet the informal sector needs in SSA.
In writing this paper, we followed the conceptual guidance provided by Webster and Watson (2002) on specific aspects such as what should be
included in the introduction of a literature review paper, how to justify a proposition, how to select the right tone, theoretical development, and
framing the contribution of a literature review paper. Furthermore, since this paper is significantly data-driven, we followed the procedure for writ-
ing a systematic literature review by Kitchenham (2004). Thus, to achieve the goal of our study, we formulated three pertinent research questions:
RQ1: What is the current state of discussion on digital platforms, and their distribution in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA).
RQ2: What are the technological affordances of digital platforms in SSA?
RQ3: How does the technological affordances of digital platforms in SSA address the challenges of the informal sector?
This study focused on digital platforms in South Africa, Nigeria, and Kenya, the countries with the highest and most visible number of digital
platforms in SSA. We followed a systematic review protocol to answer the research questions. To evaluate digital platforms affordances in SSA,
we developed an analytical framework that combined the technological affordances proposed by Sutherland and Jarrahi (2018) and the
affordances proposed by Daramola (2018) to create a comprehensive basis for assessing digital platforms affordances in SSA.
The remaining part of this paper is organized as follows: Section 2 provides the background information on relevant topics, including the
informal economy, digital technology and informal economy, platform business model, and the digital platforms characterization. Next, the
study's methodology is presented in Section 3, while Section 4 presents the findings. Section 5 contains the discussion, while the limitation of
the study is in Section 6. Finally, Section 7 concludes the paper with a summary, contributions, and overview of future work.
DARAMOLA AND ETIM 3 of 21
2 | B A CKG R O U N D
2.1 | The informal economy
Conceptually, the informal economy is a marketplace consisting of human players and social networks contributing significantly to the socio-
economic culture of subsistence and survival (Rangaswamy, 2019). Additionally, it represents sub-economic units sometimes at the micro-
enterprise level, operating outside the jurisdiction of governments and hence non-taxable entities. Thus, these economic units operating outside
the purview of government regulation are necessary components of all economic activities in most developing countries because they provide
affordable goods/products and services to a more extensive section of the population (Mahadea & Zogli, 2018; Rogan & Skinner, 2019; Vanek
et al., 2014). Two billion people participate in informal employment internationally (ILO, 2018a) with associated risks and vulnerabilities. Most of
these employments are precarious and imply that 60% of the global labor force and about 90% of small and medium-scale enterprises are informal
(ILO, 2018b). Using the light intensity approach of the Multiple Indicator Multiple Cause (MIMIC) model proposed by Henderson et al. (2012),
Medina and Schneider (2021) estimated that informal employment and the informal economy contributed significantly to the GDP of SSA coun-
tries between 1991 and 2015. Examples include South Africa (25.9%), Namibia (28.07%), Lesotho (31.28%), Uganda (26.3%), Zimbabwe (60.64%),
Ghana (42.91%), Nigeria (56.67%), Tanzania (52.22%), and Benin (53.66%).
2.2 | Digital technology and the informal economy
Technology has the propensity to create new industries in the informal sector/economy (Bhattacharya, 2019; Rangaswamy, 2019). In urban or
semi-urban areas, jobs revolving around shared-ride driving, homestay hosts, and e-commerce logistics (MasterCard.org) are easier to come by
(Cilliers, 2021). Technology offers the economics of scale, accelerating regional and international informal trade (Rangaswamy, 2019). By leverag-
ing technology in rural regions, innovative solutions enhance market expansions in the informal economy to small micro-enterprises and increase
the availability of a wide range of goods and services open to customers. A study conducted in 2019 by the Mastercard Foundation Partnership
for Finance in a Digital Africa (FiDA, 2019) revealed that micro-entrepreneurs in Kenya desire offline support to help ease digital transitions,
want platforms to facilitate their upskilling, and want the burgeoning online work community to be protected (Partnership for Finance in a Digital
Africa - FiDA, 2019).
Ng'weno and Porteous (2018) posit that digital technology and the gig economy are on a collision course in Africa, for the gig economy (as an
integral part of the informal sector) has been the driver of employment in many countries in the continent. People do “gigs” for the family or
neighbors part-time while running small micro-businesses full-time. Overall, despite the surge in digital platforms and new enabling technologies,
it would be naïve to think they will improve job prospecting in the African continent. According to Ng'weno and Porteous (2018), ideally, the
future of work will revolve around jobs like shared-ride drivers, homestay hosts, e-commerce logistics, e-commerce traders and sellers, small-scale
e-commerce producers. Furthermore, they stated that people would continue to have multiple “portfolios of gig jobs” at their disposal because
that would only be the means of employability and survival in the changing world of work dynamics. Notable examples of the digital platforms are
Jumia, employing about 3000 (together with 100,000 commissioned affiliates) workers across Africa, Lynk for artisans in Kenya, and Domestly
(for domestic workers) in South Africa.
In addition, Delautre and Diallo (2018) in ILO (2018c) observed that digital tools/technologies are not solely the hallmark of developed econo-
mies but also Africa's informal economy. For example, drawing on the ILO/Orange Lab (2018c), Senegalese informal sector women utilized tech-
nologies to increase market access, negotiate better supply chain deals, and boost financial inclusion opportunities and short-term savings
options. Therefore, the goal of ILO (2018c) in these reports is to emphasize digital technologies emancipating power for the informal sector's
formalization.
2.3 | The platform business model
Gawer (2009) defined platforms as the foundational products, services, or technologies upon which additional complementary products, services
or technologies can be developed and provisioned. A platform business model creates value by enabling interaction and economic exchange
between two or more user groups (Zhao et al., 2020). It facilitates an exchange between consumers and producers by connecting large and scal-
able networks of users and resources that can be accessed on-demand. Three main characteristics typify the platform business model: they are
technologically mediated, enable interaction, and allow user groups to carry out defined tasks (Bonina et al., 2021).
Today many businesses such as Airbnb, Amazon, Alibaba, Tencent, Baidu, Google, Salesforce, and Facebook adopt the platform business
model to remain competitive and viable (Bonina et al., 2021; Deloitte, 2018). These companies use online networks to drive digital interactions
(Deloitte, 2018; Kenney & Zysman, 2016). The applicability and functionality of platforms range include service providers (e.g., Uber and Airbnb);
goods/products (Amazon, Alibaba, and eBay); payment facilitators (e.g., Square, PayPal); and software developers (e.g., Apple and Salesforce).
Value creation in traditional linear business models depends on goods sold to customers, but the platform business models connect users (con-
sumers and producers) through an online network (Deloitte, 2015). An important observation is that platforms do not claim ownership of the
means of production but rather enhance innovation via information and data exchange, which creates a better open economic system for the
users (Deloitte, 2017).
2.4 | Characterization of digital platforms
Digital platforms are the online technologies employed to promote gig jobs and business activities in the platform economy. Generally, digital plat-
forms are technology companies technically providing a market system enabled through online platforms with promoting business interactions
between service providers, crowd workers and those in need of their services/skills and expertise. They enable suppliers and customers to gather
freely, articulate, communicate, contract, trade, exchange, transfer payments, and advertise products. The on-demand economy incorporates a
business model delivering products and services based on users' orders (Cho & Cho, 2020).
Thus, platform workers must be technology savvy, literate, and work seamlessly among digital platforms to arrange short-term gigs, apart
from apportioning time for resource acquisition and training (Friedman, 2014; Sundararajan, 2015). Hence, according to Vallas and Schor (2020),
platform work could be characterized into the following:
1. Architects and technologists of the platforms: These, as founders, are highly skilled employees and independent contractors who design and
maintain the digital infrastructure of these platforms. Labor compensation for the long and tortuous journey of working long hours comes dur-
ing the IPO or acquisition.
2. Cloud-based consultants or freelancers (crowdsourcing): These offer professional services using platforms such as UpWork or Freelancer. Unlike
architects, these workers are users rather than creators. This type of work is not conditional on geographic locale because workers are not
tethered to individual workspaces but can be digital nomads. This category consists of highly skilled technical professionals—graphic designers,
computer programmers, journalists, editors, legal assistants—working on specialized projects (Christin, 2018). Cloud-based consultants can
secure constant sources of income if they can maintain a steady stream of clients. In addition, crowd-working sites have a greater propensity
to disperse work usually performed in-house.
3. Gig workers: This category of workers provides offline services such as ride-hailing, grocery/pharmacy/food delivery, home maintenance, and
care workers. The market for this type of worker is robust, and arrangements include flexibility per work scheduling and autonomy, which are
lacking in (traditional) formal employment.
4. Online micro-tasking: Workers engaged on Amazon Mechanical Turk (AMT) do this. These workers undertake human-intelligence tasks, where
computers cannot perform, being part of machine learning. Technically, these jobs require less skill, training, and experience than crowd-based
consultants and freelancers (Vallas & Schor, 2020; Wood et al., 2018).
5. Social media content producers and influencers: This type of work is primarily unpaid (Vallas & Schor, 2020) but provisionary, with payments
coming after one acquires a certain level of prominence (Marwick, 2013).
3 | M E TH O DO LO GY
The study adopts the systematic review procedure by Kitchenham (2004), which involves planning, conducting, and reporting the review. The
specific steps of the review phase are research identification; (i) primary studies selection; (ii) study quality assessment; (iii) data extraction and
progress monitoring; and (iv) data synthesis.
3.1 | Data collection
We collected relevant literature data using appropriate search strings to extract articles from selected literature databases. In addition, we col-
lected data from digital platforms in South Africa, Nigeria, and Kenya.
3.2 | Search strings
Table 1 shows the initial Boolean search strings used to retrieve data.
These search strings were narrowed further to include “Gig economy” OR “Platform economy” OR “Sharing economy”, OR “Digital Platform”
OR “Gig work”, OR “Micro-work” AND “Africa” and produced 34 documents in Scopus, and 17,100 documents in Google Scholar (Table 3). By
applying a stricter condition using the advanced search feature, we obtained 39 documents from Google Scholar.
Allintitle: Africa “Platform economy” OR “Gig economy” OR “Sharing economy” OR “Digital Platform” OR “Gig work” OR Microwork OR “Africa's
platform” = 39.
TABLE 1 Search string for digital platforms
Search string Scopus Google Scholar

“Digital platforms” AND “Africa” 15 16,400
“Gig economy” AND “Africa” 6 4110
“Platform economy” AND “Africa” 2 1570
“Sharing economy” AND “Africa” 13 9170
Micro-work” AND “Africa 3 444
“Gig work” AND “Africa 1 860
Total 40 32,544
TABLE 2 Quality assurance of the inclusion articles
S. no. Authors RQ1 RQ2 RQ3

1 Deloitte (2015, 2017, 2018) No No Yes
2 David-West and Evans (2016) Yes No No
3 Nelson et al. (2017) No Yes Yes
4 Drouillard (2017) Yes No Yes
5 Makuvaza et al. (2018) Yes No No
6 Delautre and Diallo (2018) Yes No No
7 Roomaney et al. (2018) No No Yes
8 Ng'weno and Porteous (2018) Yes No Yes
9 Accenture (2018) No No Yes
10 ILO (2018a; 2018b; 2018c) No No Yes
11 Onkokame et al. (2018) Yes No Yes
12 David-West et al. (2018) Yes No No
13 Smit et al. (2019) Yes No Yes
14 Lakemann and Lay (2019) Yes No Yes
15 Hunt et al. (2019) Yes No Yes
16 GoDigital WC (2020) Yes No No
17 Vallas and Schor (2020) No No Yes
18 Cho and Cho (2020) No No Yes
19 Johnson, Bester, et al. (2020) Yes No Yes
20 Naidoo (2020) Yes No Yes
21 Johnson et al. (2021) Yes No Yes
22 Crunchbase (2021) Yes No No
23 Badran (2021) Yes Yes Yes
24 Anwar and Graham (2021) Yes No Yes
25 Penu (2021) Yes No No
26 Umukoro and Onuoha (2021) Yes No No
27 Umukoro (2021) Yes No No
28 Grove and Breytenbach (2021) Yes Yes No
TABLE 3 The current state of discussion on digital platforms in Africa by authors
S.
no. Issue Authors
1 Mode of ownership of digital platforms Johnson, Bester, et al. (2020); Johnson et al. (2021); Crunchbase (2021); GoDigital
WC (2020); Drouillard (2017); and Delautre and Diallo (2018)
2 Provision of increased job opportunities Onkokame et al. (2018); Grove and Breytenbach (2021)
3 More participation in the gig economy Roomaney et al. (2018); Onkokame et al. (2018)
4 Formalization of informal businesses Lakemann and Lay (2019); Ng'weno and Porteous (2018)
5 Economic characteristics Badran (2021)
6 Distribution across Africa David-West and Evans (2016); David-West et al. (2018); Makuvaza et al. (2018);
Johnson, Bester, et al., 2020; Johnson et al. (2021); Insight2Impact (2019)
7 Labor right issues Anwar and Graham (2021); Hunt et al. (2019); Naidoo (2020); Grove and
Breytenbach (2021)
8 Abuse of control Grove and Breytenbach (2021)
9 Benefits and business value Umukoro and Onuoha (2021); Umukoro (2021)
10 Frameworks and methodological approaches used Penu (2021)
for research on digital platforms in SSA
Further refinement involved ensuring that papers jointly listed by Scopus and Google Scholar were not selected twice. In addition, the papers
with the same authors published in different sources but with little difference in content were treated as a single publication by selecting the more
detailed version. Finally, we also applied inclusion and exclusion criteria to choose a set of 30 primary studies.
3.3 | Inclusion and exclusion criteria
We define inclusion and exclusion criteria as follows.
3.4 | Inclusion criteria
The selected papers were articles and conference papers with any search strings included in their title. Also included were research reports and
technical reports with credible publishers/authors considered relevant to the study. A paper must be relevant to at least one of the study's
research questions to be selected. In selecting digital platforms, we considered those that exist as a business or organization deriving revenue
(here as value) from enhancing/promoting interactions between two or more distinct groups of potential users. The user groups consist of goods
and services providers and consumers.
3.5 | Exclusion criteria
We excluded paper publications not focused on any of the search strings and not relevant to any of the research questions that focus on this
study. For the selection of digital platforms, we excluded platforms containing classified/traditional advertisements, which serve as notification
media but do not facilitate economic transactions. Instead, the emphasis is on platforms that enable interactions and transactions between sellers
and buyers (Insight2Impact, 2019). Some digital platforms have a multi-faceted nature but still, qualify for selection. An example is Uber Eats,
which enables interactions such as (1) the consumer places an order; (2) the restaurants accept and execute the order; and (3) the driver delivers
the food.
3.6 | Study quality assessment
It was necessary to perform a quality assurance process to verify the correctness of the data collected. We did this by sending all the articles
selected by the second author to the first author for assessment and review. A vetting exercise was performed to ensure we chose the right arti-
cles based on the applied search strings. During the process, we discovered two relevant papers (Badran, 2021; Lakemann & Lay, 2019) that
should have been included but were overlooked. Therefore, we added the two papers to the pool of final selected papers. At the end of the
assessment exercise, 32 individual articles were chosen as primary studies. Table 2 highlights the articles selected for the study and their rele-
vance to specific research questions.
4 | FINDINGS
The study's findings in response to specific questions are presented in the next section.
4.1 | RQ1: What is the current state of discussion on digital platforms, and their distribution in SSA?
Some key issues on digital platforms in SSA have received authors' attention. For example, Onkokame et al. (2018) observed that apart from for-
eign microwork platforms, such as Freelancer, Elance (UpWork), ODesk, and Amazon Mechanical Turk, operating globally with a presence in
Africa, there are many locally based microwork platforms in SSA. However, due to low internet penetration in Africa, with only two countries,
Nigeria and South Africa, attaining a 30% Internet penetration, micro-workers among internet users in SSA is just 3%. This fact is also supported
by other authors (Crunchbase, 2021; Delautre & Diallo, 2018; Drouillard, 2017; GoDigital WC, 2020; Johnson et al., 2021; Johnson, Bester,
et al., 2020). Thus, despite digital platforms' potential to support local communities by creating gig employment opportunities, they can widen the
digital divide as only a few people have access to them (Grove & Breytenbach, 2021).
Roomaney et al. (2018) observed that the role of digital platforms in achieving mass participation in the platform economy, particularly in the
area of digital microwork could be enhanced by (i) focusing on skills development initiatives that will equip people with what is required to partici-
pate in digital microwork; (ii) creating awareness initiatives that promote digital labor and microwork opportunities; (iii) reducing the cost of inter-
net access, providing ICT infrastructure for digital platform work and microwork, and (iv) formulating policies that will protect digital labor workers
in terms of their remuneration, working conditions, and labor rights.
Also, Lakemann and Lay (2019) claim that digital platforms offer new opportunities for informal entrepreneurs to be more productive and
eventually embrace formalization, which would benefit the informal sector in SSA. According to Ng'weno and Porteous (2018), the informal sector
in SSA is resilient and unproductive, but digital platforms could be critical to the informal sector's formalization in SSA.
Badran (2021) posits that digital platforms have specific economic characteristics, which make them attractive, including (i) the concept of
network effects, (ii) the reduction of transaction costs and searching costs, (iii) the asymmetric pricing structure, and (iv) the plethora of users'
data. According to Umukoro and Onuoha (2021), adopting digital platforms in different industries in SSA has resulted in the reconfiguration of
industry value chains to provide direct access between producers and consumers. It has also provided opportunities to re-organize work, lower
access and affordability costs, value co-creation, and link cross-border markets (Umukoro, 2021).
In addition, although gig work via digital platforms could be seen as a solution to employment in SSA, concerns exist on issues of labor stan-
dards, social protection, working conditions, labor exploitation, and workers' rights (Anwar & Graham, 2021; Hunt et al. (2019); Naidoo, 2020;
Grove & Breytenbach, 2021). According to Grove and Breytenbach (2021), actors, such as government, commerce, and a hybrid of both, can
abuse control over digital platforms. Penu (2021) conducted a systematic literature review on digital economy platforms in Africa and found that
very few studies adopted a methodological framework that included a theoretical/ conceptual model. An overview of the current state of discus-
sion on the digital platforms in SSA from the authors' perspective is presented in Table 3.
In the distribution of digital platforms, South Africa, Nigeria, and Kenya have the highest number of digital platforms in Africa (David-West
et al., 2018; David-West & Evans, 2016; Johnson, Bester, et al., 2020; Makuvaza et al., 2018). In addition, Johnson et al. (2021) found that out of
277 digital platforms in the SSA survey in 2018, over 80% are homegrown and designed to meet the local needs in their countries of origin and
surrounding countries.
Many digital platforms for the platform economy have emerged due to an increase in internet usage/penetration, increasing from 7% (2010)
to 28% (2019) (ITU, 2019) in Africa. As a result, digital platforms have increased their operational footprints in Africa, gaining about 37% more
platforms between 2018 and 2019 (Insight2Impact, 2019; Makuvaza et al., 2018). In the same period, homegrown digital platforms accounted for
80% of the total (365) operational digital platforms in SSA, despite data suggesting that foreign platforms tried to capture local markets.
South Africa overtook Nigeria with the most platforms, and Kenya experienced the fastest growth in platforms. Also, some digital platforms
expanded into other countries (e.g., Kuhustle—originating from Kenya, expanded into Ghana, Nigeria, Rwanda, South Africa, Tanzania, and
Uganda) in 2018/2019. In Johnson et al. (2021); Smit et al. (2019), a set of criteria was used to compose a database of digital platforms in Africa.
The criteria include:
1. The existence of two distinctive user groups;

2. The ability for both observation and recording of transactions between users on either side of the mediated platform;
TABLE 4 The countrywide distribution of platforms (Smit et al. 2019; 2021; Insight2Impact, 2019)
Number of platforms per Cumulative per cent per total of 365 operational Average monthly users per
Country country platforms (%) platform
South 142 38.90 122,000
Africa
Nigeria 122 38.42 71,000
Kenya 118 32.33 34,000
Ghana 96 26.31 15,000
Uganda 68 18.65 3000
Tanzania 64 17.53 7000
Zambia 57 15.62 4000
Rwanda 47 12.88 1000
TABLE 5 Sub-sector distribution of platform ecosystem in Africa (David-West & Evans, 2016; Insight2Impact, 2019)
Number of platforms Number of platforms Total number added as of

Sub-sector (FY2018) (FY2019) FY2019
Online shopping (only goods) (e.g., Jumia, Takealot, and 67 98 31
Konga)
Freelance (e.g., Snupit and Vconnect) 71 91 20
e-hailing (e.g., Uber, Bolt, GIMA) 53 81 28
Logistics/Courier 38 53 15
Online shopping (restaurants) for example, Uber-Eats and 27 24 3
Jumia Foods)
Rental (e.g., Booking.com, Airbnb) 26 36 10
Other (e.g., Expedia, Eventbrite) 24 33 9
3. Facilitation of secure payments between various types of users, as well as the ability to split proceeds for different user types from a singular
transaction; and
4. The propensity for value extraction from these transactions.
The authors applied these criteria to classify the digital platforms as valid or not. The number of valid digital platforms found in specific SSA coun-
tries are presented in Table 4.
Additionally, reports gathered for specific final years (FY), such as FY2018 and FY2019, showed an increase in the number of platforms in
sub-Saharan Africa (see Table 5) as observed by Smit et al. (2019). According to Zhao et al. (2020), competitive dynamics are crucial in the viability
and sustainability of digital platforms due to the fierce rivalry between platforms that target the same user base. Many platforms struggle or lose
out due to this competition, while few are successful Van Alstyne and Parker (2017, p. 28).
David-West and Evans (2016) also observed notable sectorial representation of digital platforms operating in sub-Saharan Africa. The authors
reported that the largest number of platform companies are in e-commerce (about 29%), workplace platforms (14%), and real estate (12%).
Money-related companies, classified, social networking, and travel companies make up about 7%. At the same time, media, food, dining, and gam-
ing ranged from 2% to 5%. Table 6 shows digital platforms in the three countries with the most digital platforms in SSA: South Africa, Nigeria, and
Kenya. These three countries are the case studies used for this study.
4.2 | RQ2: What are the technological affordances of digital platforms in SSA?
4.2.1 | Affordances of digital platforms
We use the terminology ‘affordances’ to describe the unique characteristics of technological platforms that enhance sharing and collaborative
exchange. According to Gibson (1978), affordances describe the perceptions of an object's utility from a user's perspective. In the case of digital
platforms, one must consider these affordances as inseparable from uniquely executed applications. They are not particularly technological
TABLE 6 Sectorial representation of digital economy platforms (David-West & Evans, 2016)
Sector South Africa Nigeria Kenya

e-Commerce/marketplace Bidorbuy, Takealot Jumia, Konga Jumia, Amanbo
Travel Jovago, Safari Now Jovago, Hotel.ng StayNow, Safari Now
Workplace BoGo, Freelancer, Upwork FindWork, Dirlance, Freelancer, Upwork Freelancer, BrightMonday
Classified Gumtree, OLX, Howzit OLX, Ojobuy, Jij.ng OLXL, Biashara, Kilakitu
Real estate Private property Lamudi, Private Property, ToLet BuyRentKenya
Money M-Pesa M-Pesa
Media IrokoTv, MultiChoice, GoTv MultiChoice, IrokoTv MultiChoice
Food and dining services Hellofood, Dine4Six AreaChops EatOut
Social networking BoBo Free BoBo Free BoBo Free
Transport Cheki, GoMyWay GoMyWay GoMyWay, ANNISA Taxis, BebaBeba
TABLE 7 Affordances of the digital platforms (Sutherland & Jarrahi, 2018)
Code Affordance Description

A1 Generating They provide rapid dynamic access. For example, participants can access on-demand resources, work, or labor and the
flexibility ability for participants to contribute to different roles
A2 Match-making The propensity to bring participants together depends on needs or what they can provide. The digital platform can
optimize these processes by using algorithmic/digitally supported filtering, evaluation, and search
A3 Reach extension It is dependent on the access that the platform provides (scalability, distance, and heterogeneity) of resources and
peers. Participants' ability to access more resources, different types of resources, more distant resources or
resources that lay unutilized/idle or were inaccessible
A4 Transaction The mediator facilitates the transaction logistics, for example, by holding currency in an escrow account, or security
management provision, recordkeeping, and providing workspace to complete the assignment/task
A5 Building of trust The mediator facilitates a system of legitimacy, building confidence between participants and the mediation process's
validity
A6 Facilitating The mediator encourages, accelerates, and benefits from collective action. A large social movement is a feature of the
collectivity digital platform, and participants can leverage the social capital of communities/neighbors or professional groups
materialities, but activities performed by actors trying to leverage digital platforms, running under multiple circumstances (Nelson et al. (2017);
Evans et al., 2017). According to Sutherland and Jarrahi (2018), the six identified affordances are: generating flexibility, matchmaking, reach exten-
sion, transaction management, trust-building, and facilitating collectivity (see Table 7).
Similarly, Daramola (2018) proposed additional technological affordances for inclusion/integration in the design of electronic portal platforms
that would support informal businesses (see Table 8) to increase the accessibility of such platforms. The informal sector occupies the lowest base
of micro-, small, and medium-scale enterprises (MSMEs) of people with low literacy and digital skills. Thus, digital platforms/portals supporting the
informal sector must have mechanisms that effectively match their profiles.
Thus, for this study, we combined technological affordances A1–A6 by Sutherland and Jarrahi (2018) and A7–A12 by Daramola (2018) to
develop the analytical framework for evaluating digital platforms in SSA.
The developed analytical framework thus provides a more comprehensive set of criteria for evaluating the affordances of digital platforms
that target informal sector users. We consider this a vital contribution to platform economy research because it is the first attempt to develop for-
mal criteria to assess the suitability of digital platforms to meet the needs of informal sector users. In the sequel section, we demonstrate the
applicability of the analytical framework by using it to evaluate digital platforms in selected SSA countries.
4.2.2 | Criteria for selection of digital platforms
To address RQ2, we purposively selected fifteen (De Soto, 2000) digital platforms, five each from South Africa, Nigeria, and Kenya, since it is
impracticable to look at all existing digital platforms in each country. We selected one digital platform per sub-sector of the platform economy to
obtain a fair spread, as presented earlier in Table 6.
TABLE 8 Desirable affordances of an electronic portal to support the informal sector (Daramola, 2018)
Code Affordance Description

A7 Supporting better decision- The propensity to support the intelligent recommendation (AI), providing better pricing information
making
A8 Multimodal interface The ability to support multiple modes of user interaction, including voice-activated requests
A9 Native language support The ability to support user interactions in local languages
A10 Features for conversation The ability to support chatbot, real-time interaction
A11 Support for formalization The provision for profiling, authentication, and documentation of informal service providers
A12 Support for public/private The ability to support public/private partnerships through other parties like government and non-
partnership governmental organizations (NGOs)
TABLE 9 Affordances of selected digital platforms in South Africa
Platform A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11 A12

BOLT (www.bolt.eu) (e-hailing) ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Dine4Six (www.dine4six.com) (restaurant) ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Sweep South (www.sweepsouth.com) (on-demand) ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
M4JAM (www.m4jam.com) (Freelance; gig) ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Takealot (www.takealot.com) e-commerce marketplace ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Notes: A1, generating flexibility; A2, matchmaking; A3, reach extension; A4, transaction management; A5, building of trust; A6, facilitating collectivity;
A7, support for better decision-making; A8, multimodal interface; A9, native language support; A10, features for conversation; A11, support for
formalization; A12, support for public/private partnership.
i. Affordances of digital platforms in South Africa

The analysis of key digital platforms in South Africa based on the 12 parameters of our analytical framework (A1–A12) is presented in Table 9.
Bolt (previously known as Taxify) is an e-hailing /driving, ride-hailing platform connecting riders and drivers. Drivers are not mandated to be
full-time but must offer their services part-time. In addition, Bolt does not operate a monthly fee for drivers. Instead, each completed trip comes
with a 10%–20% fee on the completed trip dependent on the city of activity. Notably, drivers do not have to be owners of their vehicles but can
be matched with the partner fleet of rental vehicles (GoDigital WC, 2020).
M4JAM (Money4jam) targets low skill workers and underemployed persons. The underemployed and unemployed persons can then earn
money so that they can also purchase goods and services. In the process, they can then upskill themselves via micro-jobbing and micro-module
learning and tutoring. Users must be over 18 years old and must download the App to be part of the group. M4JAM also provides partnership
opportunities for businesses to access services in the informal market sector in the local communities, leading to a win-win for the business con-
cerned and service providers in the communities.
SweepSouth specializes in domestic cleaning with all service providers vetted. The platform connects domestic workers that are the service
providers to prospective customers desiring domestic cleaning services.
Dine4Six (for chefs and restaurants) established in 2017, represents a social dining platform connecting goods/services (here implying chefs
and restaurants) with potential customers (diners) through the opening of dining tables to curated chefs around the globe.
Takealot (an e-commerce platform) is the largest online retailer in SA, and as of FY2019, 2500 third party corporations employed the services
of Takealot Marketplace platform to sell to about 2 million Takealot shoppers (Malinga, 2019). The products sold on the Takealot platform range
from baby and toddler, books and courses, beauty and cosmetics, computers and gaming, garden pool and patios, groceries, office, and stationery,
to toys, sport and training, and home appliances. Takealot has a key delivery network/distribution centres (Western Cape, Kwazulu-Natal, and
Gauteng). In addition, several collection points are available to customers for options of delivery or returning of orders at any time of the week.
The pick-up centres are named Takealot Pickup Points (MyBroadBand, 2019).
We observed that all selected digital platforms in South Africa have affordances A1–A7. The features that support decision-making (A7) are
basic, consisting of the provision of search, browsing, and price information by most platforms. All the platforms (Bolt, Sweep South, Dine4Six,
M4JAM, and Takealot) lacked support for multimodal interface (A8), native language (A9), and conversational features (A10). All the platforms
except Takealot offered support for formalization (A11), while only M4JAM provided features that can enable public/private partnership (A12).
ii. Affordances of digital platforms in Nigeria

The analysis of key digital platforms in Nigeria based on the 12 parameters of our analytical framework (A1–A12) is presented in Table 10.
TABLE 10 Affordances of selected digital platforms in Nigeria

GIGM https://gigm.com/ (e-hailing) ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Jumia Foods https://food.jumia.com.ng/ (restaurant) ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Eden (https://ouredenlife.com/) (on-demand) ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Dirlance (www.dirlance.com) (freelance) ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Konga (www.konga.com) ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Notes: A1, generating flexibility; A2, matchmaking; A3, reach extension; A4, transaction management; A5: building of trust; A6, facilitating collectivity;
A7, support for better decision-making; A8, multimodal interface; A9, native language support; A10, feature for conversation; A11, support for
formalization; and A12, support for public/private partnership.
GIGM: GIGM.com is a technologically driven road transport company in Nigeria. GIGM facilitates inter-city and inter-town travels within
Nigeria. GIGM.com operates in over 10 states in Nigeria, cutting across five of the country's six geo-political zones. GIGM allows car owners to
drive it as GIGM captains (drivers) within GIGM and be paid. In addition, corporate partners that own private vehicles can put them to profitable
use under GIGM. As a result, both the individual and corporate partners of GIGM are remunerated.
Jumia Foods is an online platform for takeaway and food delivery services. The platform collaborates with restaurants across different cities in
Nigeria to ensure that food ordered within the city is delivered to customers in a few minutes. Customers can order food from restaurants of their
choice and have it delivered within minutes.
Konga is Nigeria's second-largest online mall. The Konga app, which can be downloaded with either App store/Google Play store, covers prod-
ucts ranging from building and construction materials to electronics, computers, fashion, beauty products, home, and kitchen appliances. Cus-
tomers are attracted to the platform because of its credibility and trust due to its quality and reliability. Customers also have the luxury of paying
with a KongaPay Card.
Dirlance is a microwork platform for quality Nigeria freelancers. It is more of a community marketplace for freelancers (programmers, writers,
or a team of freelancers to handle any task). It provides the opportunity to find, hire a service, and form collaborative groups for most tasks and
pay for the job after a satisfactory completion for any business/corporation. Credibility is provided by the platform, as it recruits and rates quali-
fied freelancers in Nigeria for “gig work”. Freelancers on the platform include web mobile and software designers, sales and marketing, writers,
accounting and consulting services, and video animation.
Eden is an on-demand platform that offers home laundry, home cleaning, and food delivery services in Lagos, Nigeria. All the service providers
are vetted and fully insured to render laundry, food service, and home cleaning services.
We found that the selected platforms from Nigeria have affordances A1–A7. For A7, all the digital platforms had at least one feature that
could aid decision-making by a user, which could be by enabling browsing, search, category-based filtering, or providing cost estimates and price
ranges. None of them employed AI features that offered the user product/service recommendations or suggestions. Only one platform (Jumia
foods) made provision for user interaction via Pidgin English as a form of native language support (A9) while others did not. Four platforms
(GIGM, Jumia foods, Eden, and Konga) have a chatbot providing conversational capability (A9). The chatbots use the English language as the lan-
guage of communication. All the selected platforms in Nigeria offered support for formalizing individual contractors or workers (A11). None of the
platforms supported multimodal interface (A8) or features that can enable private/public partnership (A12).
iii. Affordances of digital platforms in Kenya

The analysis of key digital platforms in Kenya based on the 12 parameters of our analytical framework (A1–A12) is presented in Table 11.
Jumia Kenya is an e-commerce platform (covering baby products, health and beauty, home and appliances, phones/tablets, computers, elec-
tronics, fashions, toys, games etc.). It is one of the largest e-commerce platforms in Africa, with operational bases in multiple countries.
Qazzi is established as a freelancer platform that assists Kenyans to “turn their ideas into reality”. It is tailor-fit to enable chatting and with
professionals 24/7 through an app (available in Google Play or App store). In addition, it aids outsourcing alternatives, including call centres, IT
support help desks, and brand promotion, while helping freelancers build their portfolio and skills development. The algorithmic platform is a
robust, powerful local platform enabling free posts, chatting, negotiating and decision-making. It also has a safe, secure, multiple payment systems.
The focus is on professionals skilled in programming/IT, writing and translation, creative design, sales and marketing, business consultants and
accountants, architects/engineers, and legal/insurance needs.
EatOut is a digital platform that connects consumers and restaurants. It aggregates a large pool of different restaurants across cities/countries
and allows customers to make bookings remotely. It filters information to provide restaurants with the opportunity to market their food services.
It allows users to browse, discover, and access discounts and offers at hundreds of restaurants across East Africa.
Little Cab is a taxi-hailing company that integrates car transportation within Kenya onto a technology platform. It offers a convenient, trans-
parent and quick service fulfillment for the customers and driver-partners. Cab owners benefit from Little's network and technology platform,
TABLE 11 Affordances of selected digital platforms in Kenya

Little Cab (https://www.little.bz/ke/) (e-hailing) ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Sendy (www.sendyit.com) (On-demand) ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
EatOut (www.eatout.co.ke) (Restaurant) ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Qazzi (www.qazzi.co) (Freelance) ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Jumia (www.jumia.co.ke) e-commerce/marketplace) ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Notes: A1, generating flexibility; A2, matchmaking; A3, reach extension, A4, transaction management; A5, building of trust; A6, facilitating collectivity;
A7, support for better decision-making; A8, multimodal interface; A9, native language support; A10, feature for conversation; A11, support for
formalization; and A12, support for public/private partnership.
which helps them procure customers and enhance their income. Little Cab currently operates in Kenya, Uganda, Tanzania, and Zambia. Little Cab
is in partnership with Safaricom, which provides the technology platform on which the App operates (Crunchbase, 2021).
Sendy is a business-to-business (B2B) platform that offers on-demand door-to-door delivery for SMEs. It allows users to schedule, track and
pay for all deliveries with their device (Crunchbase, 2021). It integrates motorcycle delivery (logistics for consumers and business, on the other
hand, rates drivers, offers transparent pricing, transparent package tracking and monitoring, aggregating many different motorcycle delivery
drivers for credibility (Drouillard, 2017). The payment ecosystem is through M-Pesa/Credit Cards and the availability of API for other application
integration. Trust is built through affiliation with Sendy and increases credibility for boda-boda drivers, while API has significantly reduced transac-
tional friction. The use of the API enhances e-commerce activities.
The findings from Kenya reveal that the selected digital platforms have affordances A1–A7. The features that support decision-making (A7) did
not include any form of AI but are pretty basic (search, browsing, product/service price range). The affordances for multimodal interface (A8), native
language support (A9), and public/private partnership support are lacking in all platforms. Moreover, pre-registration is a requirement for partners or
service providers in all the platforms (Jumia, Sendy, Qazzi Eatout, and Little Cab), which means they can support formalization (A11).
Based on the analysis, we observed that the digital platforms in the three African countries possess affordances that enable generating flexi-
bility (A1); matchmaking of service providers and customers (A2); reach extension, which engenders greater network effect (A3); transaction man-
agement that ensures payment for services (A4); trust-building through the rating of services and reviews (A5); and facilitation of collectivity (A6).
They also offer significant support for decision-making by a customer (A7) through features that enable searching and browsing products and ser-
vices and filtering information on products and services. In addition, many platforms also provide pricing information and cost estimation for
products and services and online quotations. All of this information could help a user to make an informed decision. However, there were no
AI-enabled features like those that intelligent recommendations or personalization based on a user's profile typical of more sophisticated
platforms like Amazon and Netflix to aid decision-making.
Furthermore, all the digital platforms lack affordances that support multimodal user interaction like voice-based inputs and text (A8); and
native language support (A9). Therefore, the affordances of the digital platforms are more suitable for the educated gig workers with sufficient
digital literacy and not the uneducated and informal workers with low digital literacy. Hence, it is necessary to design more inclusive and accessi-
ble digital platforms.
In addition, all the digital platforms except M4JAM (South Africa) lack support for public/private partnerships with government, not-for-profit
organizations (NPOs), or other third parties that could engender social impact. Thus, most digital platforms' owners seem more focused on profit-
making than developing the informal sector and public good.
4.3 | RQ3: How does the technological affordances of digital platforms in SSA address the challenges of the
informal sector?
Many authors have highlighted the challenges of the informal sector in SSA. The acknowledged challenges of the informal sector include lack of
skills necessary for formal employment, minimal/lack of governmental support (local or municipal) for the informal sector, structural challenges
ranging from poor infrastructure, lack of electricity to internet connectivity, precarious nature of production facilities, lack of ICT usage, absence
of social benefits and protection, and safety and health issues, and lack of formalization (Liedeman et al., 2013; Rogan & Skinner, 2019;
Fourie, 2018; ILO, 2018a; 2018b; 2018c; Mahadea & Zogli, 2018; Daramola, 2018; Etim & Daramola, 2020).
At the same time, SSA countries could address some of the challenges of the informal sector by using digital platforms to support informal
business activities (Deloitte, 2017, 2018; 2019; Delautre & Diallo, 2018; Ng'weno & Porteous, 2018; Johnson, Bester, et al., 2020; Anwar &
Graham, 2021). In Table 12, we attempt to assess the potential of digital platforms in SSA to address the challenges of the informal sector based
on their existing affordances.
TABLE 12 Challenges of the informal sector and affordances of digital platforms
S.
no. Challenges Implication Affordances of platforms
1 Lack of skills and certification necessary for Many persons are excluded from participation Most digital platforms in SSA have
formal employment (Skinner, 2019; in the formal economy because of formal affordances such as generating flexibility
Rogan & Skinner, 2019; Etim and employment's high skills certification (A1), matchmaking (A2), reach extension
Daramola (2020) requirements. Hence, they can only pursue (A3), transaction management (A4), building
informal jobs of trust (A5), facilitating collectivity (A6),
support for better decision-making (A7).
These affordances suit the educated
platform workers with high digital literacy.
However, features that can enable
multimodal interactions through voice (A8),
useful for those who cannot read or write,
and opportunities for users to interact in
their native language (A9) on digital
platforms are currently lacking. Thus, at the
moment, existing digital platforms lack
affordances that can support the lowest
cadre of the informal sector who have low
digital literacy and are the majority.
2 Low literacy levels (ILO, 2018c; Skinner, This problem explains why many informal So far, most digital platforms in SSA have
2019) sector workers are not qualified for formal matchmaking (A2) capability but do not
employment. They are also unable to possess a multimodal interface (A8), native
engage with highly sophisticated language support (A9), and conversational
technologies capability (A10), which could increase their
accessibility. Hence, existing digital
platforms are not well suited to address this
problem.
3 Poor skills and training (Etim & This problem is a consequence of the low Although the digital platforms have
Daramola, 2020; Rogan & Skinner, 2019; literacy level among informal sector actors, affordances A1-A7, which makes them
ILO, 2018a; 2018b; 2018c) which has made them unfit for formal suitable for educated platform workers,
employment they lack affordances that cater to the
uneducated informal sector workers' needs.
Hence, they have not addressed this
challenge.
4 Minimal/lack of government support The lack of sufficient attention paid by Most digital platforms have not made
(Skinner, 2019; Mahadea & Zogli, 2018; governments to the informal sector has provision for partnership or participation of
Etim & Daramola, 2020) limited its productivity and overall third parties such as government and NPOs
contributions to the national economy of (A12) that could also play a role in
SSA countries developing the informal sector. Most digital
platforms have focused on matchmaking of
customers and service providers and
mediation of the resultant financial
transactions. They have not paid attention
to promoting government support for the
informal sector.
5 Poor operational infrastructure This problem is tied to the lack of sufficient The existing digital platforms have features
(ILO, 2018a; 2018b; 2018c; support for informal sector operators by such as generating flexibility (A1),
Daramola, 2018; Skinner, 2019) governments of SSA countries, limiting matchmaking (A2) and reach extension (A3),
informal businesses' productivity and which can help informal sector operators to
profitability thrive and become more profitable despite
the problem of poor infrastructure. Thus,
the digital platforms in SSA have addressed
this challenge
6 Lack of electricity, or expensive power This challenge stems from poor government Most of the existing digital platforms have not
supply, expensive internet connectivity support for the informal sector in most SSA focused adequately on enabling
(Rogan & Skinner, 2019; countries partnerships with government or NPOs in a
Daramola, 2018; Etim & Daramola, 2020 way that could aid informal businesses.
Very few digital platforms provide for
public/private partnerships (A12). Thus, the
digital platforms in SSA have reasonably
addressed this challenge
(Continues)
TABLE 12 (Continued)
S.
no. Challenges Implication Affordances of platforms
7 Use of crude technology /lack of ICT Informal business operators are not highly Existing digital platforms have features such
integration into micro-enterprises skilled or digitally literate, hence adopting as reach extension (A3), transaction
(Daramola, 2018; Etim & primitive approaches management (A4), trust-building (A5),
Daramola, 2020; Rogan & Skinner, 2019) better decision-making (A7) which can help
informal business operators that are
digitally skilled and educated. However, the
informal sector actors who are uneducated
and not digitally literate will still find it
difficult to use most existing digital
platforms. Thus, digital platforms have not
addressed this challenge
8 Absence of social protection (Skinner, In most cases, informal sector businesses are Existing digital platforms have done well in
2019) not regulated by the government and do transaction management, which can protect
not pay tax. Hence informal operators are the financial interests of informal
generally not offered any form of social businesses. However, services providers on
protection in SSA digital platforms have to register and
provide documentation in most cases. In
addition, some digital media also take steps
to vet the service providers on their
platform. Hence, digital platforms can offer
good support for formalization (A12), which
could help get informal businesses
registered by the government and come
into the tax net. Moreover, when
businesses that are more informal register
with the government, they can make a
stronger claim for social protection in SSA
countries where such exist. Thus, digital
platforms have the potential to address this
challenge significantly.
9 Precarious working conditions Some informal businesses operate in difficult The platforms' features, such as matchmaking
(Fourie, 2018; Rogan & Skinner, 2019) and risky conditions just to contact (A2), reach extension (A3), transaction
prospective customers, limiting the long- management (A4), A5 building of trust (A5),
term sustainability of such informal facilitating collectivity (A6), have a good
businesses impact on informal businesses. For
example, due to COVID-19, digital
platforms are being used actively to enable
business transactions involving goods/
items delivery and payment services
between service providers and customers
successfully. The educated workers in the
informal sector have benefitted quite well
from this, but not so much for persons in
the lowest cadre of the informal sector that
are not educated and not digitally literate.
10 Health and safety issues that relate to The government does not regulate informal Most digital platforms do not currently
business (ILO, 2018a; IMF, 2017a; businesses, which means that it does not possess features that could address this
IMF, 2017b; Fourie, 2018) cater for health and safety issues that challenge. However, this may change in the
concern customers and service providers future when they begin to get into mutually
beneficial collaborations with government
agencies and other external parties
11 Lack of formalization (Chen, 2007; Informal businesses are tiny and mostly lack Generally, digital platforms have the potential
ILO, 2018c; IMF, 2017a; IMF, 2017b) the structure to embrace formalization, to address this problem. The majority of
which explains why they are difficult to digital platforms require service providers
regulate to register their personal and business
information on their platforms. Thus, digital
platforms can support the formalization of
informal businesses
5 | DISCUSSION
5.1 | The current state of discussion and distribution of digital platforms in SSA
So far, researchers have reported on the key issues that pertain to digital platforms in SSA (see Table 3). From the perspectives of various authors,
the following facts emerge:
(i) Some homegrown digital platforms are thriving, but many more tend to struggle and ultimately do not survive.
According to Johnson, Bester, et al., 2020, Johnson et al., 2021, over 80% of SSA digital platforms are homegrown in ownership,
while the rest have foreign ownership. Few homegrown digital platforms have extended their operations to other countries, for exam-
ple, Jumia and Kuhustle, which indicates that homegrown digital platforms have a good growth potential if they target the right market
niche and remain competitive in a sustainable way. The foreign digital platforms with a presence in SSA countries tend to have a larger
share of the market in subsectors where they are found. Examples of this include e-hailing (e.g., Uber, and Bolt), hospitality (Airbnb)
because they started 5 years earlier and also have a more robust financial base (GoDigital WA, 2020; Johnson, Bester, et al., 2020).
Recently, some homegrown digital platforms have secured foreign investor funding (Eden, Mondoride, etc.) which enhances their viabil-
ity and probability of survival in the long term (Crunchbase, 2021). However, according to Johnson, Bester, et al., 2020, new digital
platforms outnumber the growth of the user base in most SSA. Therefore, many homegrown digital platforms become inactive after
operating for a few years due to intense competition. Thus, many more become inactive for every thriving digital platform (Van Alstyne
and Parker (2017, p. 28)).
(ii) Digital platforms provide more job opportunities in the informal sector, but the effect is not far-reaching enough.
Digital platforms provide more job opportunities in the informal sector within the local communities in SSA countries. A typical exam-
ple is the advent of motorbike e-hailing platforms like MAX.ng and Safeboda in Nigeria, where motorbike ride is cheaper and a popular
means of intra-city transportation (Johnson et al.,). Digital platforms have also enabled digitally literate local talents to participate in
microwork as freelancers. (Grove & Breytenbach, 2021; Onkokame et al., 2018). However, the impact of digital platforms on the wider
population of people who work in the informal sector of SSA is still minimal (3% participation) because of low internet penetration, which
is less than 30% in most SSA countries. Internet access via the mobile phone remains the most accessible means for most people in SSA,
which is still very expensive and unaffordable for many. Thus, governments and relevant stakeholders in the Telecom industry of SSA
countries need to support informal businesses to maximize the potential benefits of digital platforms. According to Roomaney et al. (2018),
reducing the cost of data for internet access and providing ICT infrastructure is essential to maximizing digital microwork opportunities
for SSA countries.
(iii) Digital platforms have the potential to promote inclusive economic participation, but many challenges still exist at the moment.
The potential of digital platforms to increase economic participation by getting more people engaged in informal employment has been
acknowledged (Onkokame et al., 2018; Roomaney et al. (2018)). According to Roomaney et al. (2018), the problems in most SSA countries include
the lack of appropriate digital skills, lack of awareness of digital microwork opportunities on global platforms such as Amazon Mechanical Turk
(MTurk), Freelancer, Elance (UpWork), high cost of internet access and poor ICT infrastructure. Thus, governments in SSA must promote friendly
and proactive policies to address these problems.
(iv) Digital platforms are beneficial to gig workers and the informal sector, but serious labor concerns still exist in relation to digital plat-
form work.
Authors such as Anwar and Graham (2021) and Hunt et al. (2019) are among those that have expressed concerns about labor rights issues on
digital platforms. The labor laws in most SSA countries do not cover digital platform work; therefore, digital labor workers are not adequately
protected by labor laws (Heeks et al., 2021). The right labor laws will ensure that all stakeholders in digital platform work (customer, service pro-
vider, and platform organization) derive business value while the abuse of control by the digital platform organizations is prevented (Grove &
Breytenbach, 2021).
(v) Digital platforms can aid formalization or semi-formalization of the informal sector.
Digital platforms, in most cases, require service providers to register before they are enlisted for partnership. Thus, as observed by Lakemann
and Lay (2019) and Ng'weno and Porteous (2018), digital platforms are suitable vehicles for the formalization of informal businesses. Most SSA
countries could realize this if digital platforms collaborate with external parties like the government and NPOs. However, according to Umukoro
and Anagboso (2021), digital platforms are not yet taking advantage of external parties for the public good.
(vi) Digital platforms can provide a win-win for all stakeholders if their economic characteristics are properly harnessed.
Digital platforms possess many beneficial economic characteristics that they could leverage for planning and business intelligence
(Badran, 2021). Similarly, Umukoro and Onuoha (2021) and Umukoro (2021) observed that adopting digital platforms in different business sectors
in SSA has positively affected industry value chains and facilitated the linking of cross-border markets. However, the overall contribution of the
informal sector to economic growth is still at the suboptimal level (Medina and Schneider (2021). Hence, policies that will enable all stakeholders
(informal sector workers, customers, platform organizations, and government) to benefit maximally through digital platforms must be
implemented.
(vii) Some theoretical gaps exist in gig/platform economy research in Africa.
Penu (2021) conducted a systematic literature review and found many important issues related to digital platforms that are still under-
researched. These issues include competition and competitiveness of digital platforms, business sustainability, service quality and user satis-
faction, platform governance, platform requirements and design, and platform affordances. Penu (2021) also stated that many empirical
papers published so far on the platform economy in Africa lack a theoretical or conceptual framework. Thus, more research studies that
apply theoretical frameworks and theories are necessary to have a more coherent body of knowledge that will guide platform economy
research and practices. In addition, Umukoro and Anagboso (2021) requested that researchers give more attention to how information
asymmetry can benefit platform companies and how digital platforms can leverage collaboration with external parties to advantage for the
public good.
In terms of digital platforms distribution, the identified categories include logistics/courier, e-hailing, online shopping (e-commerce market-
place/restaurants), on-demand, freelancing, and microwork (see Tables 4, 5, and 6). The greatest number of platforms as of FY 2019 is in online
shopping (98-goods only), freelance (91) and e-hailing (81) (Johnson et al., 2020) (2016) posit that the largest platforms were in e-commerce
(29%), workplace (14%), and real estate (12%). Equally, the largest concentration of digital platforms continues to be in South Africa (142 or
38.90%), followed by Nigeria (122 or 38.42%) and Kenya (118 or 32.32%), with a total of 365 platforms operating in Africa as of FY2019.
South Africa, Nigeria, and Kenya have the highest internet penetration in SSA, which explains the rise in the number of digital platforms in these
countries.
5.2 | Technological affordances of platform economy in SSA
Significant conceptual similarities exist in digital platforms affordances in SSA mainly because they are designed to solve similar problems in differ-
ent countries across SSA. In addition, some digital platforms have an international presence in multiple countries where the same features are rep-
licated or customized to specific local needs. Some digital platforms in SSA have expanded to other countries in Africa. Examples of these include
Jumia (Nigeria, Kenya, and Egypt), Takealot (South Africa, and Kenya), Kuhustle (Kenya, Ghana, Nigeria, Rwanda, South Africa, Tanzania, and
Uganda), and Bolt (South Africa, Nigeria, and Kenya).
Based on the findings in Tables 9, 10, and 11, we observe that digital platforms in SSA have affordances that enable generating flexibility
(A1); matchmaking (A2); reach extension (A3); transaction management (A4); building of trust (A5); facilitating collectivity (A6); and to some extent
support for better decision-making (A7). In addition, most digital platforms use basic features like browsing, search, and pricing information to sup-
port users' decision-making. However, sophisticated support for decision-making such as personalized search and recommendations on advanced
platforms like Amazon or Netflix are currently lacking.
Most digital platforms in SSA do not possess a multimodal interface (A8) or native language support (A9), which could enable persons with
low-level digital literacy or education to use them. Thus, they lack affordances that match the profile of the lowest cadre of the informal sector,
who are mainly uneducated and have little/no digital literacy (Daramola, 2018). More digital platforms have realized the benefits of real-time
interactions with users with chatbots to facilitate conversation (A10). However, the chatbots are mostly configured to communicate in English
and not in local languages that are more suitable for most locals.
Furthermore, many digital platforms have features that can support formalization (A11), but features that can enable public/private partner-
ship (A12) are rarely supported. Across the three countries considered in our study, only one (M4JAM in South Africa) supported public/private
partnerships underlining the position of Umukoro and Anagboso (2021) that the positionality of digital platforms to leverage externalities for the
public good should be investigated.
5.3 | The features of the platform economy and the challenges of the informal sector in SSA
From Table 12, we infer that existing digital platforms could advance to a level where they can contribute significantly to address some of the pressing
challenges of the informal sector. However, they are currently lacking in some critical aspects that make them inadequate. So far, the accessibility of
digital platforms is limited by a lack of affordances that match the profile of the majority of uneducated and digitally illiterate informal sector actors.
Thus, the challenges of the informal sector such as i) lack of skills and certification for formal employment; ii) low literacy levels; iii) poor skills and train-
ing; iv) use of crude technology /lack of ICT integration into micro-enterprises; v) precarious working conditions; identified by authors (Skinner, 2019;
Rogan & Skinner, 2019; Etim & Daramola, 2020; ILO, 2018a; 2018b; 2018c; Fourie, 2018) are not yet catered for by digital platforms in SSA. Also, dig-
ital platforms are currently poorly positioned to play a significant role in alleviating the challenges of the informal sector, such as (i) minimal/lack of
government support; (ii) lack of electricity, or expensive power supply, and expensive internet connectivity; and (iii) health and safety issues that relate
to business (Skinner, 2019; Mahadea & Zogli, 2018; Etim & Daramola, 2020; ILO, 2018a; IMF, 2017a; IMF, 2017b; Fourie, 2018). In addition, digital
platforms mostly lack affordances that support partnerships/collaboration with government and other external parties that lead to the development of
the informal sector and promotion of causes that target the public good. So far, digital platforms have focused more on promoting business interac-
tions among user groups through match-making and mediation of financial transactions to gain some profit (Grove & Breytenbach, 2021; Onkokame
et al., 2018) and widening economic opportunities (Badran, 2021).
However, digital platforms can contribute significantly to address some challenges of the informal sector, such as (i) poor operational infra-
structure; (ii) absence of social protection; and (iii) lack of formalization (ILO, 2018a; 2018b; 2018c; Daramola, 2018; Skinner, 2019;
IMF, 2017b; Chen, 2007). Most of the existing digital platforms in SSA have features such as generating flexibility (A1); match-making (A2);
reach extension (A3); transaction management (A4); building of trust (A5); facilitating collectivity (A6); support for better decision-making (A7).
These affordances can create better economic opportunities for informal businesses despite poor operational infrastructure. Informal business
actors who are digitally literate and intelligent enough to leverage digital platforms for marketing their services can profit and gain market-
related advantages. In addition, most digital platforms have relevant information on informal business service providers that operate on their
platform, making them suitable mediums to explore for the semi-formalization/formalization of informal businesses and granting social protec-
tion for informal businesses.
6 | L I M I T A TI O N O F T H E A N A L Y TI C A L R E V I E W
The authors utilized Scopus and Google Scholar as the data sources to extract articles. Web of Science and Scopus have been the two most
widely used databases for searching peer-reviewed literature and bibliometric analyses (Singh et al., 2021). Several studies on the comparison of
academic databases have revealed that Scopus has a wider coverage of journals and peer-reviewed papers compared to the Web of Science
(Gusenbauer & Haddaway, 2020; Harzing & Alakangas, 2016; Joshi, 2016; Martín-Martín et al., 2018; Singh et al., 2021). The content of Scopus
overlaps significantly with the content of other databases such as Web of Science (99.11%) (Singh et al., 2021), ScienceDirect (100%). Scopus also
has specific indexing partnership agreements with organizations like ACM, IEEE and SpringerLink to ensure that many of their peer-reviewed sci-
entific documents are indexed in Scopus. These include ACM Digital (100% coverage of ACM journals and conferences), IEEE Explore (100% of
IEEE journals and conferences), and SpringerLink (Scopus-indexed journals and conferences). Google Scholar is essentially a superset of Web of
Science (95%) and Scopus (92%), with substantial extra coverage of articles from other non-peer-reviewed sources (Martín-Martín et al., 2018).
Thus, Google Scholar is one of the most comprehensive free sources for publications and citation data (Harzing, 2019).
However, we could have missed some relevant papers in less prominent databases. In addition, the findings reported in this paper are based on the
accumulation of facts interpreted by the research team. Therefore, it may not be devoid of human error. The analysis also covered only papers published in
English because English is the official language in SA, Nigeria, and Kenya. For the selection of digital platforms, we considered options in specific subsectors
of the platform economy and relatively well-known digital platforms per country as the basis for deductions and generalizations made in this study. A few rel-
atively new and not well-known digital platforms may exist with different features and characteristics from the ones reported in this study.
7 | C O N CL U S I O N
This paper presents an analytical review of digital platforms in SSA. We formulated three research questions that focus on the main issues of the
current discussion on digital platforms in SSA, their technological affordances, and their potential to address the challenges of the informal sector.
We used search strings based on the main themes of the study to extract relevant articles from Scopus and Google Scholar. We also gathered
data from digital platforms in Kenya, Nigeria, and South Africa, with the highest number of digital platforms in SSA.
Our findings indicated that (i) some homegrown digital platforms are thriving, but many do not survive; (ii) digital platforms provide more
job opportunities in the informal sector, but the effect is still minimal; (iii) digital platforms have the potential to promote inclusive economic
participation, but are not doing so at the moment due to many existing challenges; (iv) serious labor concerns still exist on digital platform
work; (v) digital platforms can aid formalization or semi-formalization of the informal sector; (vi) digital platforms can yield significant bene-
fits for all stakeholders if their economic characteristics are properly harnessed; and (vii) some theoretical gaps still exist in platform economy
research in Africa.
In addition, we found that about 365 platforms were operational in SSA, portraying a highly competitive and fragmented platform economy
ecosystem. As of FY2019, robust growth indicated a 37% increase year on year (Insight2Impact, 2019). Although most of these platforms were
tailored to the local marketplace, their underlying architecture included features common to foreign competitors.
We also found that most of the platforms have affordances that support generating flexibility (A1), match-making (A2), reach extension (A3),
transaction management (A4), building of trust (A5), facilitating collectivity (A6), and support for better decision-making (A7). However, digital
platforms in SSA are mostly lacking in terms of affordances that support multimodal interface (A8), native language content (A9), and public/
private partnership (A12). Because of this, they are currently incapable of addressing the challenges of the informal sector in the areas of low liter-
acy levels; poor skills and training; use of crude ICT tools/methods micro-enterprises; and precarious working conditions; minimal/lack of govern-
ment support; lack of electricity, or expensive power supply, expensive internet connectivity; and health and safety issues. However, they can
help alleviate the informal sector's lack of formalization, lack of social protection, and poor operational infrastructure.
The topic of technological affordances of digital platforms in SSA has not been explored previously in platform economy research in Africa.
Thus, as a theoretical contribution, this paper provides a new perspective on the technical requirements and affordances that digital platforms
must possess to meet the needs of the informal sector in SSA. We also developed a comprehensive affordances criteria framework for evaluating
the technical requirements of digital platforms in SSA, which is also the first attempt to the best of our knowledge. By applying the affordances
evaluation framework on some specific cases in three African countries (South Africa, Nigeria, and Kenya), we discovered that existing digital plat-
forms have a lot of conceptual similarities in terms of features and functionality with little or no conceptual differences. In addition, some digital
platforms directly imitate other platforms with no innovation. Hence, more innovative designs are needed to accommodate new user groups
through a multimodal interface and support platform interactions in native languages. It will enable participants with minimal digital literacy to par-
ticipate in the platform economy and generally increase the accessibility of digital platforms. Digital platforms also need to open up for partner-
ships with government and NPOs to promote causes that focus on social good and not just economic benefits.
In terms of practical contribution, this study reveals vital aspects of planning and policy developments that need the attention of platform
organizations and various governments in SSA. For example, platform organizations in SSA need to explore opportunities for partnerships with
relevant government agencies and other external parties like NPOs and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that could bring mutual benefits.
In addition, they need to invest more in developing more accessible and inclusive platforms that can support multiple modes of user interaction
such as voice, multilingualism, and content localization in local languages, which will draw more users to their platforms.
Governments in SSA countries will need to:
1. invest more in developing digital infrastructure either in broadband or 5G to enable mass economic participation in the platform economy. So
far, most Africans access the internet through their mobile phones. If this must continue for some time, then the cost of internet access must
be cheap and affordable;
2. provide more policy support for the platform economy through the formulation of labor laws that recognize the fundamental rights and labor
rights of informal sector workers and all actors in the platform economy;
3. do more to promote awareness of digital labor opportunities among the populace so that those with the requisite talent and skill can seek
profitable jobs and engagements on microwork platforms to alleviate some of the challenges of poverty and unemployment.
We shall conduct empirical studies on competition among digital platforms in specific industry subsectors and impact assessments of digital plat-
forms in SSA in future work. We also plan to design and develop an innovative digital platform that will support multimodal interfaces and interac-
tion in local languages, which is mostly lacking, to assess the potential impact on selected user groups.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This research has been supported by the Cape Peninsula University of Technology, South Africa.
CONF LICT OF IN TE RE ST
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
DATA AVAI LAB ILITY S TATEMENT

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
ORCID
Olawande Daramola https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6340-078X
Ernest Etim https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4219-8647
RE FE R ENC E S
Accenture, (2018.) South Africa: Winning with digital platforms. www.accenture.com
Anwar, M. A., & Graham, M. (2021). Between a rock and a hard place: Freedom, flexibility, precarity and vulnerability in the gig economy in Africa. Competi-
tion & Change, 25(2), 237–258.
Badran, M. F. (2021). Digital platforms in Africa: A case-study of Jumia Egypt's digital platform. Telecommunications Policy, 45(3), 102077.
Bhattacharya, R. (2019). ICT solutions for the informal sector in developing economies: What can one expect? The Electronic Journal of Information Systems
in Developing Countries, 85(3), e12075.
Bonina C., Koskinen K., Eaton B., Gawer A. (2021). Digital platforms for development: Foundations and research agenda. Information Systems Journal, 31(6),
869–902.
Chen, M. A. (2007). Rethinking the informal economy: Linkages with the formal economy and the formal regulatory environment. DESA Working Paper
No. 46. ST/EAS/2007/DWP/46. htpps://www.un.org/esa/desa/papers/2007/wp46_2007.pdf/
Cho, W., & Cho, S. E. (2020). Entrepreneurship challenges in the business model for the gig economy: Agenda for research and business development. Inter-
national Journal of Entrepreneurship, 24(1), 1–11.
Christin, A. (2018). Counting clicks: Quantification and variation in web journalism in the United States and France. American Journal of Sociology,
123(5), 1382–1415.
Cilliers, J. (2021). The future of work in Africa. In The future of Africa (pp. 195–219). Palgrave Macmillan.
Crunchbase, (2021). Mondo ride. Crunchbase.com/organization/Mondo-ride
Cusumano, M. A., Gawer, A., & Yoffie, D. B. (2019). The business of platforms: Strategy in the age of digital competition, innovation, and power.
HarperBusiness.
Daramola, O. (2018). Towards a multimodal portal framework in support of informal sector businesses. In International congress of telematics and computing
(pp. 110–119). Springer.
David-West, O. & Evans, P. C. The rise of African platforms: A regional survey. The Emerging Platform Economy Series No, 2. https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/306401003_The_Rise_of_African_Platforms_A_Regional_Survey
David-West, O., Umukoro, I. O., & Onuoha, R. O. (2018). Platforms in sub-Saharan Africa: Startup models and the role of business incubation. Journal of
Intellectual Capital., 19(3), 581–616.
De Soto, H. (2000). The mystery of capital: Why capitalism triumphs in the West and fails everywhere else. Basic Books.
Delautre, G., & Diallo, Y. (2018). Digital tools: An opportunity for Africa's informal sector. https://iloblog.org/2018/08/30/digital-tools-an-opportunity-for-
africas-informal-sector/
Deloitte (2015): Business ecosystems come of age https://documents.deloitte.com/insights/BusinessTrends2015
Deloitte (2017): The new governance of the platform economy. https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/cn/Documenta/about-deloitte/dttp/
deloitte-cn.dttp-vol7-ch6-platform-economy-en.pdf/
Deloitte, (2018). The rise of the platform economy. Deloitte The Netherlands. https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/nl/Documents/
humancapital/deloitte-nl-hc-reshaping-work-conference.pdf
Drouillard, M. (2017). Addressing voids: How digital startups in Kenya create market infrastructure. In B. Ndemo & T. Weiss (Eds.), Digital Kenya. Caribou
Digital. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-57878-5_4
Duszynski, M. (2021). Gig Economy: Definition, statistics and trends. zety.com/blog/gig-economy-statistics?gclid=
EAIaIQobChMloojSluTR7glVBe7mCh0QQQd0EAAYASAAEglZSvD_BwE
Etim, E., & Daramola, O. (2020). The informal sector and economic growth in South Africa and Nigeria: A comparative systematic review. Journal of Open
Innovation: Technology, Markets and Complexity (MDPI), 6(34), 1–26.
Evans, S. K., Katy, P. E., Vitak, V., & Treem, J. W. (2017). Explicating affordances: A conceptual framework for understanding affordances in communication
research. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 22(1), 35–52.
Fourie, F. (2018). The south African informal sector: Creating jobs, reducing poverty. Human Sciences Research Council. https://www.hsrcpress.ac.za/books/
the-southafrica-informal-sector-providing-jobs-reducing-poverty/
Friedman, G. (2014). Workers without employers: Shadow corporations and the rise of the gig economy. Review of Keynesian Economics, 2(2), 171–188.
Gawer, A. (2009). Platform dynamics and strategies: From products to services. In Platforms, markets and innovation (Vol. 45, p. 57). Edward Elgar.
Gibson, J. J. (1978). The ecological approach to the visual perception of pictures. Leonardo, 11(3), 227–235.
GoDigital WC, (2020). A guide to exploring gig economy and freelancing opportunities.westerncape.gov.za/assets/departments/economic-development-
tourism/June/godigitalwc_article_10_a_guide_to_exploring_gig_economy_and_freelancing_opprtunities/
Grove, W. J., & Breytenbach, J. (2021). Selected dynamics impacting emerging platform design in Africa. In Africa's platforms and the evolving sharing econ-
omy (pp. 141–162). IGI Global.
Gusenbauer, M., & Haddaway, N. R. (2020). Which academic search systems are suitable for systematic reviews or meta-analyses? Evaluating retrieval
qualities of Google Scholar, PubMed, and 26 other resources. Research Synthesis Methods, 11(2), 181–217.
Harzing, A. W. (2019). Two new kids on the block: How do Crossref and dimensions compare with Google Scholar, Microsoft Academic, Scopus and the
Web of Science? Scientometrics, 120(1), 341–349.
Harzing, A. W., & Alakangas, S. (2016). Google Scholar, Scopus and the Web of Science: A longitudinal and cross-disciplinary comparison. Scientometrics,
106(2), 787–804.
Heeks, R., Graham, M., Mungai, P., Van Belle, J. P., & Woodcock, J. (2021). Systematic evaluation of gig work against decent work standards: The develop-
ment and application of the Fairwork framework. The Information Society, 37, 1–20.
Henderson, J. V., Storeygard, A., & Weil, D. N. (2012). Measuring economic growth from outer space. American Economic Review, 102(2), 994–1028.
Hunt, A., Samman, E., Tapfuma, S., Mwaura, G., & Omenya, R. (2019). Women in the gig economy: Paid work, care and flexibility in Kenya and South Africa
ODI Report
ILO. (2018a). Women and men in the informal economy: A statistical picture (3rd ed.). International Labour Office, 2018. https//www.ilo.org/publications/
books/WCMSx2x831/langxxen/index.htm/
ILO (2018b). Informal Economy: More than 60 per cent of the world's employed population are in the informal economy. ilo.org/global/about-the-
ilo/newsroom/news/WCMS_627189/lan-en/index_htm
ILO, (2018c). Digital tools: An opportunity for Africa's informal sector. International Labour Office, 2018. iloblog.org/2018/08/30/digital-tools-an-
opportunity-for-africas-informal-sector/
IMF (2017a). The informal economy in sub-Sharan Africa: Size and determinants. WP/17/156. Prepared by Leandro Medina, Andrew Ionelis, and Mehmet
Cangul.
IMF (2017b). Nigeria's informal economy accounts for 65% of GDP. https://www.businessamlive.com/nigerias-informal-economy-accunts-65-gdp-imf/
Insight2Impact (2019) Africa's digital platforms database. Insight2impact. https://www.access.i2ifacility.org/Digital.Platforms/
ITU (2019). Measuring digital penetration. https://www.itu.int/en/ITU-D/Statistics/Documents/facts/FactsFigures2019.pdf
Johnson, C., Bester, H., Chamberlain, D., Dunn, M., & Banya, R. M. (2021). The rise and role of Africa's platform economy in inclusive development. In
Africa's platforms and the evolving sharing economy (pp. 40–64). IGI Global.
Johnson, C., Bester, H., Janse van Vuuren, P. and Dunn, M. (2020): Africa's digital platforms: Overview of emerging trends in the market, Centre for Finan-
cial Regulation and Inclusion (Cenfri) Report. https://cenfri.org/wp-content/uploads/Africas-digital-platforms-trends-report.pdf
Johnson, C., Dunn, M & Sack, H. (2020). Livelihood experiences of Nigeria's e-hailing workers. Centre for Financial Regulation and Inclusion (Cenfri) Report.
https://cenfri.org/publications/e-hailing-workers-livelihood-experiences-in-nigeria/
Joshi, A. (2016). Comparison between Scopus and ISI web of science. Journal Global Values, 7(1), 1–11.
Katta, S., Howson, K., & Graham, M. (2020). The Fairwork Foundation: action research on the gig economy. Global Dialogue, 10(1), 44-46.
Kenney, M., & Zysman, J. (2016). The rise of the platform economy. Science and Technology, 32(3), 61.
Kitchenham, B. (2004). Procedures for performing systematic reviews. Keele University, 33(2004), 1–26.
Lakemann, T., & Lay, J. (2019). Digital platforms in Africa: The "Uberisation" of informal work. In GIGA Focus Afrika, 7. GIGA German Institute of Global and
Area Studies - Leibniz-Institut für Globale und Regionale Studien, Institut für Afrika-Studien. https://nbn-resolving.org/urn:nbn:de:0168-ssoar-65910-4
Liedeman, R.; Charman, A.; Piper, L.; Petersen, L. (2013). Why are foreign-run Spaza shops more successful? The rapidly changing Spaza sector in
South Africa. Econ3x3 (2013). https://www.econ3x3.Org/
Mahadea, D., & Zogli, L. J. (2018). Constraints to growth in informal sector activities and formalisation: A case study of Ghanaian slums. The South African
Journal of Entrepreneurship and Business Management, 10, 1–9.
Makuvaza, L., Johnson, C. & Smit H. (2018). The rise of African digital platforms. Insight2Impactact-2018 https://www.i2ifacility.org/insigths/blog/the-
riseSSof-african-digital-platforms?entry-blog&offset-4/
Malinga, S. (2019). Takealot edges closer to 2m customers. https://www.itweb.co.za/content/KzQenvj8x2YMZd2r/
Martín-Martín, A., Orduna-Malea, E., Thelwall, M., & Lo pez-Co
zar, E. D. (2018). Google Scholar, Web of Science, and Scopus: A systematic comparison of
citations in 252 subject categories. Journal of Informetrics, 12(4), 1160–1177.
Marwick, A. E. (2013). Status update: Celebrity, publicity and branding in the social media age. Yale University Press.
Medina, L., & Schneider, F. (2021). The evolution of shadow economies through the 21st century. In D. Corinne & L. Medina (Eds.), The global informal work-
force: Priorities for inclusive growth. International Monetary Fund.
MyBroadBand, (2019). Takealot opens collection points across SA. Mybroadband.co.za/news/business/304002-takealot-opens-collection-points-across-
south-africa.html
Naidoo, K. 2020. Innovation, digital platform technologies and employment: An overview of key issues and emerging trends in South Africa. Future of
work(ers) SCIS working paper number 9. Southern Centre for Inequality Studies. Wits University.
Nelson, S. B., Jarrahi, M. H., & Thompson, L. (2017). Mobility of knowledge work and affordances of digital technologies. International Journal of Information
Management, 37(2), 54–62.
Ng'weno, A., & Porteous, D. (2018). Let's be real: The informal sector and the gig economy are the future, and the present, of work in Africa (p. 15). Center for
Global Development.
O'Dea, S. (2020). Smartphone users worldwide 2016–2021. www.statista.com/statistics/330695/number-of-smartphone-users-worldwide/
Onkokame, M., Schoentgen, A., & Gillwald, A. (2018). What is the state of microwork in Africa? A view from seven countries. Policy Paper, 5, 55–76.
Partnership for Finance in a Digital Africa - FiDA. (2019). Micro-entrepreneurs in a platform era. Caribou Digital Publishing. https://mse.
financedigitalafrica.org
Penu, O. K. A. (2021). Platform economy research in Africa: A systematic review of themes, frameworks, and methodological approaches. Africa's Platforms
and the Evolving Sharing Economy, 18–39. IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-7998-3234-8.ch002
Rangaswamy, N. (2019). A note on informal economy and ICT. The Electronic Journal of Information Systems in Developing Countries, 85, 1–5. https://
wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/isd2
Rogan, M. & Skinner, C. (2019). South Africa's informal sector creates jobs, but shouldn't be romanticised. The Conversation. https://theconversation.com/
south-africa-informal-sector-creates-jobs-but-shouldnt-be-romanticised-122745/
Roomaney, Z., Van Belle, J. P., & Tsibolane, P. (2018). Addressing the Unemployment Challenge through Mobile Digital Microwork (October 30, 2018).
CPR SOUTH 2018, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3275122
Rossotto, C. M., Lal Das, P., Gasol Ramos, E., Clemente Miranda, E., Badran, M. F., Martinez Licetti, M., & Miralles Murciego, G. (2018). Digital platforms: A
literature review and policy implications for development. Competition and Regulation in Network Industries, 19(1–2), 93–109.
Singh, V. K., Singh, P., Karmakar, M., Leta, J., & Mayr, P. (2021). The journal coverage of Web of Science, Scopus and dimensions: A comparative analysis.
Scientometrics, 126(6), 5113–5142.
Smit, H., Johnson, C., Hunter, R., Dunn, M., & van Vuuren, P. F. (2019). Africa’s digital platforms and financial services: An eight-country overview (pp. 1-
42). https://cenfri.org/wp-content/uploads/ADP-Focus-Note-2019.pdf
Srnicek, N. (2017). Platform capitalism. John Wiley & Sons.
Sundararajan, A. (2015). The “gig economy” is coming. What will it mean for work? https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jul/26/will-we-
get-by-gig-economy
Sutherland, W., & Jarrahi, M. H. (2018). The sharing economy and digital platforms: A review and research agenda. International Journal of Information Man-
agement, 43, 328–341.
Treem, J. W., & Leonardi, P. M. (2013). Social media use in organisations: Exploring the affordances of visibility, editability, persistence, and association.
Annals of the International Communication Association, 36(1), 143–189.
Umukoro, I. O. (2021). Africa's platform and the shared economy: Opportunities, challenges, and new research Frontiers. In Africa's platforms and the evolv-
ing sharing economy (pp. 231–251). IGI Global.
Umukoro, I. O., & Anagboso, U. (2021). Platform governance: Dimensions, mechanisms, and tools. In Africa's platforms and the evolving sharing economy
(pp. 207–230). IGI Global.
Umukoro, I. O., & Onuoha, R. O. (2021). Africa's platform and the sharing economy: Introduction, definitions, and Conceptualisations. In Africa's platforms
and the evolving sharing economy (pp. 1–17). IGI Global.
Vallas, S., & Schor, J. B. (2020). What do platforms do? Understanding the gig economy. Annual Review of Sociology, 46(16), 1–22.
Van Alstyne, M., & Parker, G. (2017). Platform business: From resources to relationships. NIM Marketing Intelligence Review, 9(1), 24–29.
Vanek, J., Chen, M., & Hussmanns, R. (2014). Statistics on the informal economy: Definitions, regional estimates, and challenges. WIEGO working paper,
2, WEIGO
Webster, J., & Watson, R. T. (2002). Analysing the past to prepare for the future: Writing a literature review. MIS Quarterly, 26(2), xiii–xxiii.
Wood, A. J., Graham, M., Lehdonvirta, V., & Hjorth, I. (2018). Good gig, bad gig: Autonomy and algorithmic control in the global gig economy. Work Employ-
ment and Society, 33(1), 56–75.
Zhao, Y., Von Delft, S., Morgan-Thomas, A., & Buck, T. (2020). The evolution of platform business models: Exploring competitive battles in the world of
platforms. Long Range Planning, 53(4), 101892.
AUTHOR BIOGRAPHI ES
Olawande Daramola is a member of the faculty in the Department of Information Technology at the Cape Peninsula University of Technol-
ogy, South Africa. He has a PhD degree in Computer Science and an active researcher in the fields of software engineering and artificial Intel-
ligence. His research interests include semantic computing, ontologies, machine learning, big data analytics, knowledge-based systems, and
software engineering. He has published academic papers in several top journals in the fields of Computer Science, and Information
Technology.
Ernest Etim is a doctoral candidate in the Department of Information Technology, Cape Peninsula University of Technology. His research
interests include technology in business processes, small- and medium scale enterprises (SMEs), and technology adoption and use in develop-
ing/transitioning economies. He has published in several peer review journals.
How to cite this article: Daramola, O., & Etim, E. (2022). Affordances of digital platforms in sub-Saharan Africa: An analytical review. The
Electronic Journal of Information Systems in Developing Countries, 88(4), e12213. https://doi.org/10.1002/isd2.12213

Must Reast and Follow Review

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Must Reast and Follow Review

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

16814835, 2022, 4, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/isd2.12213 by Zimbabwe Hinari NPL, Wiley Online Library on [29/10/2022].

Affordances of digital platforms in sub-Saharan Africa:

Olawande Daramola | Ernest Etim

Department of Information Technology, Cape

Electron j inf syst dev ctries. 2022;88:e12213. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/isd2 1 of 21

RQ2: What are the technological affordances of digital platforms in SSA?

2.1 | The informal economy

2.2 | Digital technology and the informal economy

2.3 | The platform business model

2.4 | Characterization of digital platforms

3.1 | Data collection

3.2 | Search strings

TABLE 1 Search string for digital platforms

Search string Scopus Google Scholar

TABLE 2 Quality assurance of the inclusion articles

S. no. Authors RQ1 RQ2 RQ3

TABLE 3 The current state of discussion on digital platforms in Africa by authors

3.3 | Inclusion and exclusion criteria

We define inclusion and exclusion criteria as follows.

3.4 | Inclusion criteria

3.5 | Exclusion criteria

3.6 | Study quality assessment

1. The existence of two distinctive user groups;

Number of platforms Number of platforms Total number added as of

4.2.1 | Affordances of digital platforms

Sector South Africa Nigeria Kenya

TABLE 7 Affordances of the digital platforms (Sutherland & Jarrahi, 2018)

Code Affordance Description

4.2.2 | Criteria for selection of digital platforms

Code Affordance Description

TABLE 9 Affordances of selected digital platforms in South Africa

Platform A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11 A12

i. Affordances of digital platforms in South Africa

ii. Affordances of digital platforms in Nigeria

TABLE 10 Affordances of selected digital platforms in Nigeria

Platform A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11 A12

iii. Affordances of digital platforms in Kenya

TABLE 11 Affordances of selected digital platforms in Kenya

Platform A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11 A12

TABLE 12 Challenges of the informal sector and affordances of digital platforms

(vii) Some theoretical gaps exist in gig/platform economy research in Africa.

5.2 | Technological affordances of platform economy in SSA

DATA AVAI LAB ILITY S TATEMENT

You might also like