JOURNEY OF FINANCIAL

TECHNOLOGY (FINTECH): A
SYSTEMATIC LITERATURE REVIEW
AND FUTURE RESEARCH AGENDA
Jitender Kumar and Vinki Rani

ABSTRACT
The aim of this review is to reflect the current state of Financial Technology
(FinTech) research along with its journey of development. Further, a con-
ceptual framework showing the interaction of independent, mediating, and
moderating variables with dependent variables (acceptance of FinTech prod-
ucts and services) along with propositions is prepared to facilitate the future
researchers. This systematic literature review consists of 110 articles from 78
journals indexed in two academic databases (Scopus and/or Web of Science),
extracting facts and figures about FinTech during 2016–2021. Our findings
contribute to the literature by exemplifying that FinTech is a mixed set of
threats and opportunities. In the present review only 18 articles belong to
2016–2017 but 54 articles are considered from 2020–2021, the increasing
number of FinTech articles in high-ranking journals indicate the speedily
growing popularity of FinTech. Similarly, secondary data based articles are
dominating the primary data based ones. Further, regression analysis and
PLS-SEM are the most popular statistical techniques among the authors of
FinTech articles. To the best of knowledge of the authors, this is a unique
study in which the latest FinTech research findings are skimmed.
Keywords: Financial technology (FinTech); systematic literature review;
financial products; financial services; technology; FinTech system; security
issues

Exploring the Latest Trends in Management Literature

Review of Management Literature, Volume 1, 89–108
Copyright © 2023 Jitender Kumar and Vinki Rani
Published under exclusive licence by Emerald Publishing Limited
ISSN: 2754-5865/doi:10.1108/S2754-586520220000001005
89
90 JITENDER KUMAR AND VINKI RANI

INTRODUCTION
Financial technology (FinTech) is the key newscast in the present time. In its
widest sense, FinTech uses innovative technologies for financial products, ser-
vices, and procedures. In the last five years, FinTech attracted substantial cour-
tesy from researchers and financial players due to its ability to simplify complex
business procedures with digitalization (Fosso Wamba et al., 2020). Still, this
sector has fascinated the intense devotion of regulators, business applicants,
customers, and scholars due to its speedy modification of conventional financial
services (Cai, 2018). According to Darmansyah et al. (2020), the increasing
investment by FinTech companies globally reached US $4,256,202 million in
2018, and the worldwide transactions worth are predicted to touch US $7,971,957
million by 2022, with 17% yearly progress. These data indicate that the industry is
enormously visible in the financial world and thus provides fertile ground for
more inventive forms of innovation. Similarly, Arner et al. (2017) explore Fin-
Tech advantages in the financial system, improve faith in financial amenities
business, condensed time to market for commodities, employ commercial
authorities, and form financial start-ups. Later, Fosso Wamba et al. (2020)
analyze that the main advantage of FinTech is delivering commercial worth,
specifically in digitally altering industries and removing transaction prices.
However, very limited research has been carried out to examine the actual
connotation and ability of FinTech. The literature is flooded to diverse issues
related with FinTech, and articles are managed by different publishers and
databases. The FinTech articles are highly scattered, involving different nations,
various study variables, diverse statistical techniques, and several research
methods. In view of the above, it is complex to understand the current state of
FinTech research. Thus, the purpose of this review is to address these research
gaps in the present FinTech review, show an integrated picture considering
high-ranking articles of FinTech, and accomplish the following research
objectives:
Therefore, the key objectives of the FinTech review are mentioned below:

• To present the state of literature and synthesize the literature on FinTech in a

systematic manner that reflects the ongoing and future scope of FinTech as a
subject.
• To propose conceptual framework for examining the impact of independent,
mediating, and moderating variables on the acceptance of FinTech products
and services.
• To explore future research scope on FinTech.

The study begins with introducing FinTech and establishes the key objectives
that are achieved in this study. The second section starts with planning of review
in which an overview of the procedure adopted for data collection, inclusion and
exclusion criteria, and review approach are presented. In the third part of this
article foundation of FinTech, extant theories discussed by various researchers
and conceptual framework along with propositions are offered. The research
Journey of Financial Technology 91

topics, year of publications, research methods, sources of data collection, sta-

tistical techniques applied, and publishers are the important ingredients of the
fourth section; the fifth section focuses on knowledge gained by highlighting
select FinTech research topics. Finally, discussion and implications of FinTech
research, conclusion, and future research agenda are presented.

PLANNING THE REVIEW

Planning phase of the literature review studies is vital for the scholars, as it
suggests boundaries of the review (Rana & Sharma, 2015). During the planning
phase, an investigative search was run using pertinent keywords related to
FinTech. The subsequent documents were outlined to consider the key notions
like revolution and innovation of FinTech, impact of FinTech upgradations,
FinTech investment, and security challenges. A nonstructured process testing
blends of keywords and retrieving articles from the reference lists was used to
mature a basic consideration of the research area. This phase provided us with
the final description of criteria for filters and keywords used for finding the final
dataset.

Databases, Search Assortment, and Inclusion Criteria for FinTech Articles

The search was initiated by filling keywords like financial technology, FinTech,
FinTech revolution, investments and challenges, FinTech literature reviews,
history of FinTech, impact of FinTech, FinTech and banking, awareness
toward FinTech, FinTech and security issues, acceptance of FinTech products
and services etc. in April 2021. The search was restricted to language, article
type, and subject area. Fig. 1 is a graphic demonstration of the procedure fol-
lowed for choosing the relevant quality articles for the present review. The select
articles were accessed from Web of Science (112 articles) and Scopus (121
articles) databases for preparing a quality review article. After removing
duplicate articles, 215 publications were finally saved. At the next step, after
reading abstracts, discussion, and conclusions of downloaded articles in refer-
ence to the inclusion protocol (especially English language, exclude working
papers and indexing in Web of Science and Scopus) and removed 98 articles
that did not meet the search objective. Next, 15 articles were added into the data
bank through cross-referencing. At last, 132 articles were forwarded for full
paper reading and removed the 22 articles that were not focusing on FinTech
and its select research topics and finally we accepted 110 articles for present
review as shown in Fig. 1.
92 JITENDER KUMAR AND VINKI RANI

Define the search Exclusion criteria from databank

Not Working FinTech is not

Search on Web Search on available in papers in key focus
English (-8) (-30) (-60)
of Science Scopus

No Selection: Read abstract, discussion and

Meet the Meet the conclusions {215-(8+30+60) =117}
objective? objective?

Identified additional articles from

cross-referencing (15)
Yes Yes
Publication
is discarded Articles selected for full paper
reading (117+15=132)
Inclusion in data Inclusion in
bank (112) data bank (121)
Removed articles not focusing on select
FinTech research topics (22)
Removed duplicate articles (18)

Articles found relevant for FinTech

Initial selection of articles review (132-22=110)
(215)

Identification of FinTech articles

Inclusion and Exclusion

Fig. 1. Inclusion Process of Sample Articles.

Source: Authors Collection of Articles.

Review Approach
In this review, we access 78 high-ranking journals which are indexed in Web of
Science and/or Scopus databases. We have also accessed Google Scholar, Sci-
enceDirect, Emerald Insight, JSTOR, SAGE, Springer, Taylor & Francis, and
various websites to find popular and quality articles on FinTech. We identified
several central FinTech research topics in this review, i.e., implementation,
benefits, impact, adoption, and challenges and issues of FinTech in a variety of
industries. The article is presented by (1) research topics, (2) year of publication
(3) research method, (4) sources of data, (5) statistical techniques applied in
FinTech articles, and (6) publishers. We also calculate the percentage for all
FinTech categories to make it more understandable to the readers.
Fig. 2 presents the literature review approach, and we analyze important issues
about FinTech practices. It will help readers to understand the outline procedure
adopted by the authors for preparing the present review.
Journey of Financial Technology 93

Start with the FinTech

Objectives of FinTech review

Decide search strategy

(Online and indexing)

Decision about review approach

Classified research by
______________________________________________

Topics Research Sources Publishers

methods of data of articles

Year of publications Statistical techniques

Knowledge gained from existing studies

Discussion and implications of FinTech research

Conclusion and future research agenda

Fig. 2. Literature Review Approach. Source: Created by the authors

observing (Hoque, 2014).

FOUNDATIONS OF THE FINTECH

Concepts
Financial systems and technology have existed since long ago. But, the integra-
tion of both made FinTech. During the 1950s, automated teller machines
(ATMs) were introduced to replace human tellers and allowed customer
self-service in banking. Debit and credit cards were intended to ultimately abolish
the need for cash transfers. Although 24/7 online banking was introduced in the
late 1990s due to prevalent internet connectivity, physical branch visits became
obsolete for many customers (Breidbach et al., 2019).
94 JITENDER KUMAR AND VINKI RANI

From the following perspective, Thakor (2020) recommended that there are
three phases of FinTech development, and we are currently in the third phase (see
Fig. 3).

FinTech FinTech FinTech

1866-1967 1967-2008 2008-present

Placing of first transatlantic Electronic payments and Use of technology

cable: Clearing structure: to deliver users friendly
Telegraph ATMs and online banking quick financial services
directly to customer

Quick transmission of Use of information technology New competitiveness

financial information, (IT) by traditional financial landscape for financial
transactions, and payments. institutions to improve financial institutions.
products and services.

Fig. 3. Three Phases of FinTech. Source: Created by the authors observing

(Thakor, 2020, p. 4).

Extant Theories Argued in FinTech Articles

The followings are some of the key theories argued by different authors to
highlight the main aspects of FinTech:

Table 1. Summary of Theories Discussed in FinTech Articles.

Sr. Theory Example Citations
No.

1. Expectation Confirmation Shiau et al. (2020), Lim et al. (2019)

Theory (ECT)
2. Theory of Reasoned Action Ryu (2018), Wonglimpiyarat (2017)
(TRA)
3. Theory of Planned Mazambani and Mutambara (2019), Darmansyah et al. (2020)
Behaviour (TPB)
4. Technology Acceptance Wonglimpiyarat (2017), Singh et al. (2020), Stewart and Jürjens
Model (TAM) (2018), Susilo et al. (2019), Belanche et al. (2019), Darmansyah
et al. (2020), Shaikh et al. (2020)

Source: Authors’ own.

Journey of Financial Technology 95

Conceptual Framework and Propositions

When assessing an area of research, it is important to build and implement a
framework that helps guide and navigate current literature and allows for the
recognition of untapped territory (Rana et al., 2020) and also help readers to
understand what is being presented in the study. Consequently, we prepare a
conceptual framework (see Fig. 4) that includes the independent, mediating,
and moderating variables which are determining awareness and acceptance of
FinTech products and services (dependent variable). Thus, to study in-depth
interactions of different associated variables and to facilitate future empirical
investigations on FinTech, this conceptual framework will play an important
role.
FinTech study has taken a thin, problem-based method for addressing isolated
dissemination challenges or application opportunities arising from technical
developments (Gomber et al., 2018a, 2018b; Milian et al., 2019). To verify the
abovementioned conceptual framework, this study also summarizes the devel-
opment of FinTech by reviewing the prominent articles on FinTech. This
prompts the following propositions:
P1. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and relative advantages are
positively related to awareness of FinTech products and services.
The perceived usefulness can significantly affect consumer attitudes toward
FinTech. The TAM model would determine the acceptance rate for consumer
usefulness and attitude (Susilo et al., 2019). Similarly, perceived ease of use has a
vital effect on the acceptance of FinTech services (Shaikh et al., 2020). Likewise,

Dependent variable
Perceived
usefulness
Perceived Acceptance of
ease of use Awareness of FinTech
P1 products and
Relative FinTech
advantages products and services
services
Investments
Regulatory P2 Age
uncertainties
Education
Attitude and P4
trust Gender
Cyber risks P3
Security
issues

Independent variables Mediating variable Moderating variables

Fig. 4. Conceptual Framework. Note: P1, P2, P3, and P4 of Fig. 4 are
Showing Variables Considered for Proposition 1 to 4, Respectively.
Source: Authors’ own.
96 JITENDER KUMAR AND VINKI RANI

the relative advantages reflect awareness toward FinTech products and services.
This is the alignment of the invention that originates alternately from the ideas
used before. Accepting technology for financial transactions depends on customer
trust (Stewart & Jürjens, 2018).
P2. Investments, regulatory uncertainties, and attitude and trust are positively
related to awareness of FinTech products and services.
FinTech provides the potential to facilitate coordination across social
environments and physical geography. After COVID-19, FinTech accelerated
its growth with increased investment in digital technology (Wójcik, 2020).
Further, Jagtiani and John (2018) highlighted customer safety and behavior to
draw devotion toward regulatory challenges. The FinTech landscape develops
the regulatory frameworks and tax incentives that encourage investors and
entrepreneurs to innovate (Gozman et al., 2018). Further, attitude is the
robust analysis of behavioral intent to use a financial robo-advisor (Belanche
et al., 2019). In the next year, Wang et al. (2019) showed that trust in FinTech
services and the structural pledge have definite effects on determining cus-
tomers’ long-term intentions. Similarly, system quality, perceived control, and
situational conformity will stimulate the creation of trust in the FinTech
services.
P3. Security and cyber risks negatively affect awareness of FinTech products
and services.
Consumers might feel that advanced FinTech facilities are better than
traditional banking services. They observe that conventional financial organi-
zations were highly protected by the government (Hung & Luo, 2016). But,
Namchoochai et al. (2020) find that insecurity, human error, and untrusted
systems would be applied to all groups and products in the FinTech domain.
These risks are produced by exterior issues that cannot be measured and
avoided. Further, Gai et al. (2018) converse that innovative FinTech services
bear an unexpected cyber risk. These risks are developed from unidentified and
unreliable data operators.
P4. Age, education, and gender positively moderate the relationship between
awareness and acceptance of FinTech products and services.
Demographic characteristics are useful in several studies that can increase the
instructive control of the user’s intent to accept newest technologies. Singh et al.
(2020) state that financial services are mainly reliant on the sociodemographic
variables of operators such as gender, educational level, age, etc. These variables
are the determinants for behavioral intent and actual use of FinTech services.
Panos and Wilson (2020) tried to link financial literacy and financial well-being
using a main database of Greek university students. They suggest that more
financially educated students are better equipped to handle unforeseen financial
shocks.
Thus, the conceptual framework of this study is formed based on pre-
determined connotations by the previous investigator.
Journey of Financial Technology 97

FINTECH ARTICLES PUBLISHED IN JOURNALS

We review 110 articles focusing on select FinTech topics and published in
high-ranking journals.

The Research Topics

Table 2 shows the frequency distribution of 110 FinTech articles published during
the study period. All FinTech related articles are collected from high-ranking
management journals. We collect articles from the last six years, from 2016 to
2021. About 31 (28.18%) FinTech articles focus on financial innovation adoption
and security, 30 (27.27%) articles highlight the impact of FinTech, 21 (19.09%)
documents are on FinTech and banking, 18 (16.36%) items reflect the FinTech
revolution, investment decision and challenges, and 10 (9.09%) are literature
review articles. The focus of 110 articles on different aspects of FinTech is clearly
reflected by Table 2.

Table 2. Frequency Distribution of FinTech Research Topics.

Research Topics/Years 2016–2017 2018–2019 2020–2021 Total Percentage
(%)

FinTech innovation, adoption, and 4 9 18 31 28.18

security issues
Impact of FinTech 6 10 14 30 27.27
FinTech and banking industry 4 5 12 21 19.09
FinTech revolution, investments, and 2 9 7 18 16.36
challenges
FinTech literature reviews 2 5 3 10 9.09
Total 18 38 54 110 100

Source: Authors’ own.

Year of Publications
Table 3 indicates the FinTech articles in our sample appeared from 2016 to 2021.
The number of articles is increasing year to year, indicating the research potential
of FinTech for further studies. Further, it shows that 18 (16.36%) articles belong
to 2016–2017 and 38 (34.54%) articles are referred to 2018–2019 in our sample.
The maximum number of publications of the remaining 54 articles (49.09%)
occurred between 2020 and 2021.

Table 3. Year-Wise Classification of FinTech Articles.

Articles/Years 2016–2017 2018–2019 2020–2021 Total Percentage (%)

No. of articles 18 38 54 110 100

Total (%) 16.36 34.54 49.09 100 100

Source: Authors’ own.

98 JITENDER KUMAR AND VINKI RANI

The Research Methods

The FinTech articles are also classified based on various research methods. We
classify various research methods into eight groups that are case studies, literature
reviews, analytical, conceptual, descriptive, experimental, empirical, and
exploratory studies. Table 4 indicates that 50 (45.45%) articles are conceptual, 30
(27.27%) articles use empirical methods, 10 (9.09%) articles are based on litera-
ture reviews, 7 (6.36%) articles focus on case studies, 6 (5.45%) articles applied
analytical methods, 5 (4.54%) articles are of descriptive nature, and 1 (0.90%)
article is based on the exploratory and experimental methods.

Table 4. Frequency Distribution of FinTech Research Methods.

Research Methods/Years 2016–2017 2018–2019 2020–2021 Total Percentage (%)

Conceptual 10 17 23 50 45.45
Empirical 2 9 19 30 27.27
Literature reviews 2 5 3 10 9.09
Case studies 3 2 2 7 6.36
Analytical 1 2 3 6 5.45
Descriptive 0 1 4 5 4.54
Exploratory 0 1 0 1 0.90
Experimental 0 1 0 1 0.90
Total 18 38 54 110 100

Source: Authors’ own.

The Sources of Data

Table 5 describes the source of data of FinTech articles, i.e., primary or secondary
data. 29 (26.36%) of articles are based upon primary data that are collected by the
investigator for a specific purpose using surveys, case studies, focus groups, ques-
tionnaires, and interview methods etc. In some of the famous articles of Ali et al.
(2021), Jinasena et al. (2020), Lim et al. (2019), and Ryu (2018) primary data have
been used. Surprisingly, 81 (73.63%) articles used secondary data that are collected
by someone else for other purposes (Boot et al., 2021; Gozman et al., 2018;
Kharisma, 2021; Lagna & Ravishankar, 2021; Sohns & Wójcik, 2020).

Table 5. Frequency Distribution of FinTech Data Sources.

Data Source/Years 2016–2017 2018–2019 2020–2021 Total Percentage (%)

Primary 0 10 19 29 26.36
Secondary 18 28 35 81 73.63
Total 18 38 54 110 100

Source: Authors’ own.

Common secondary data sources include published articles, government

websites, and organizational records that were originally collected for different
purposes.
Journey of Financial Technology 99

Statistical Techniques
We classify 110 articles in reference to qualitative and quantitative methods. The
qualitative method is the process of gathering, investigating, and interpreting
nonnumerical data that aim to explore new things, patterns, insights, and themes.
But, under quantitative methods, numerical data are analyzed for finding facts
and figures for further decision-making. Generally, conceptual, literature reviews,
and case study articles use negligible statistical techniques. Only 43 out of 110
FinTech articles use various quantitative methods (see Table 6) like regression
analysis, Partial Least Square (PLS-SEM), correlation, cluster analysis,
chi-square test, t-tests, and discriminant analysis etc.

Table 6. Frequency Distribution of FinTech Research Statistical Techniques.

Sr. No. Statistical Technique Total Percentage (%)

1 Regression 9 20.93
2 PLS-SEM 9 20.93
3 Correlation 3 6.977
4 Cluster analysis 3 6.977
5 Chi-Square test 2 4.651
6 Others 17 39.53
Total 43 100

Note: Others include two or more than two statistical techniques applied in one article.
Source: Authors’ own.

Publishers/Databases of FinTech Articles

The FinTech articles are classified based on various publishers/databases. The
total of 110 FinTech articles published in Emerald, Springer, Taylor & Francis,
Elsevier, Wiley, SAGE, and JSTOR. It is vital to note that the majority of the
articles are from Emerald. Table 7 shows that 30 (27.27%) articles are published
by Emerald, 22 (20.00%) articles from Springer, 21 (19.09%) items are published
by Taylor & Francis, 19 (17.27%) publications from Elsevier, 10 (9.09%) articles
from Wiley, 7 (6.36%) items from SAGE, and 1 (0.90%) article from JSTOR.

Table 7. Frequency Distribution of FinTech Articles by Publishers.

Sr. No. Publisher/Database No. of Articles Percentage (%)

1 Emerald 30 27.27
2 Springer 22 20.00
3 Taylor & Francis 21 19.09
4 Elsevier 19 17.27
5 Wiley 10 9.09
6 SAGE 7 6.36
7 JSTOR 1 0.90
Total 110 100

Source: Authors’ own.

100 JITENDER KUMAR AND VINKI RANI

KNOWLEDGE GAINED FROM EXISTING

STUDIES ON THE FINTECH
This section highlights the key findings of FinTech articles. Following Kumar
et al’s. (2021) framework, we classify the FinTech studies into five major research
topics:

FinTech Innovation, Adoption, and Security Issues

This section considers the innovation and adoption of FinTech and its security
issues. Continuous development in FinTech will possibly improve the overall
performance of financial products and services over the next few years. Au (2021)
examines that FinTech innovation in Asia is more likely to import FinTech with
more networks to firms’ older banks. The strategic behavior, acceptance model,
and technology expand the individuals’ intentions toward FinTech services
(Darmansyah et al., 2020). After the COVID-19 paradigm, the acceptance of the
financial revolution is speedier (Boot et al., 2021) and decreased the cause of cash
payments and increased the contactless payments (Hasan et al., 2021). Finally,
Bu et al. (2021) examine how regulatory authorities can improve regulations and
prevent financial risks.

Impact of FinTech
Under this part, we analyze the articles highlighting the impact of FinTech.
Numerous researchers have defined FinTech as a developing revolutionary and
disorderly financial services industry that executes IT to increase the productivity
of the financial structure (Ryu, 2018; Shim & Shin, 2016). Likewise, Gomber
et al. (2017) explore that the financial sector has experienced an unceasing
expansion due to digitalization. After COVID-19, FinTech accelerated its growth
by increased investment in digital technology (Wójcik, 2020) and pushed digital
financial services among consumers (Knight & Wójcik, 2020). Hence, FinTech is
very prevalent in the present time in the financial market, and its speedy progress
is the key highlight of the financial system (Gai et al., 2018; Jinasena et al., 2020).

FinTech and Banking Industry

In recent years, FinTech has been an emerging topic that has altered the banking
ecosystem. According to Wonglimpiyarat (2017) and Wang et al. (2021), tech-
nology advancement has fully changed the market environment of commercial
banks, and the growth of FinTech poses substantial challenges for the traditional
banking industry. The banks have made collaboration with FinTech firms as a
core approach to fostering innovation (Drasch et al., 2018). At the same time,
FinTech has offered affordable costs for information regarding transactions,
improved transparency, and reduced the market risk of commercial banks
(Yao & Song, 2021). Finally, there are similarities as well as differences between
the working of banks and FinTech in this scenario.
Journey of Financial Technology 101

FinTech Revolution, Investments, and Challenges

FinTech is essential not only in growing the availability and assortment of
facilities but also in inspiring financial industry progress (Gabor & Brooks, 2017;
Swartz, 2017). The investments by venture capitalists in FinTech under poor
regulations and without an organized financial hub are common news (Cumming
& Schwienbacher, 2018). In contrast, Kolokas et al. (2020) investigate the venture
capital and credit markets as alternatives, specifically in nations with high Fin-
Tech entrepreneurship levels. Thus, a mixture of blockchain and other financial
solutions are in place, and auditors’ skills are the key alternatives for solving
serious financial problems (Roszkowska, 2021). At the same time, Gazel and
Schwienbacher (2020) conclude that the danger of failure is substantially lesser
for FinTech startups. Further, Lee and Shin (2018) highlight the challenges
toward FinTech, including regulatory uncertainty, technical concerns, and data
security issues.

FinTech Literature Reviews

Through literature review, Zavolokina et al. (2016) define FinTech research as a
determinant to stimulate the financial system, IT, interdisciplinary social science
problems and deliver value for practitioners who are interested in the field of
FinTech. Similarly, Cai (2018) finds that blockchain and crowdfunding both can
significantly influence traditional financial systems by offering a substitute plat-
form for financial transactions. The innovation named FinTech produces positive
value for innovators, regulators, and society. FinTech tools could significantly
decrease the existing transaction cost of farmers (Hua et al., 2019). Finally, the
consistent growth in FinTech is the driving force for financial inclusion and
worldwide poverty reduction (Lagna & Ravishankar, 2021).

DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS OF

FINTECH RESEARCH
The extensive review of 110 FinTech articles accessed from 72 journals indexed
only in Scopus (9 articles) or only in Web of Science (23 articles) or in both
databases (78 articles). The findings related to FinTech are important for the
government, business houses, and the public at large. FinTech states to mod-
ernizers and disruptors that offer additional safety, opportunities, flexibility, and
competencies (Gomber et al., 2017). Overall, this research is used as diagnostic
learning to assess the amount of knowledge on FinTech and its development over
time. The condition is complex in government-run organizations, where these
innovative structures are still difficult to implement due to the nonappearance of
clear regulations in most countries (Fosso Wamba et al., 2020). The banks with
FinTech are able to offer improved services, risk control abilities, decrease
operating costs, and offer attractive opportunities to the customers. Furthermore,
the systematic literature review employed to convey the findings and classification
of select 110 articles in five major FinTech research topics was subjective.
102 JITENDER KUMAR AND VINKI RANI

CONCLUSION
This article presents a systematic literature review of 110 FinTech articles
accessed from 78 journals indexed in Scopus and/or Web of Science databases
and published between 2016 and 2021. The authors have tried to maintain the
standard of FinTech review by considering high-ranking articles. Therefore, we
exclude 98 downloaded articles which were not meeting article inclusion protocol
(see Fig. 1). Further, it is pertinent to note from Table 1 that TAM followed by
TPB are two key theories out of the several theories argued in FinTech articles.
Similarly, the findings show that FinTech is a mixed set of threats and oppor-
tunities (Sangwan et al., 2019). Over that period, FinTech is offering innovative
financial services through digitalization to speed up financial occurrence with
physical distance (Le et al., 2021).
Further, we find that FinTech is in its budding stage and due to the fast
technological changes continuous improvement in financial products, services,
and procedures is happening. The majority of conceptual articles (45.45%)
indicate the dire need for empirical and case study based papers. Further, the
majority of the secondary data based articles (73.63%) show the relative impor-
tance over primary data based studies. Regarding the statistical techniques,
researchers use various techniques in FinTech articles, but regression and
PLS-SEM are most popular. Consequently, 73.73% articles used secondary data
indicating toward the more primary data based studies. Additionally, we prepare
conceptual model showing the impact of independent variables (perceived use-
fulness, perceived ease of use, relative advantages, investments, regulatory
uncertainties, attitude and trust, cyber risks, and security issues), mediating
variable (awareness of FinTech products and services), moderating variables
(age, education, and gender) on dependent variable (acceptance of FinTech
products and services) presented along with four important propositions to
facilitate the empirical investigations by the forthcoming researchers. Finally, this
study is also a stepping stone for future researchers because they can understand
the sequence of development of FinTech by reading this single article and have a
bird’s eye view of FinTech research along with future research directions.

FUTURE RESEARCH AGENDA

Our analysis of the literature reveals considerable facts about FinTech. But, still
there are some issues which need general clarifications and remain unaddressed in
the FinTech literature.

• FinTech products and applications. FinTech is an attractive area that has

received little attention (Romānova & Kudinska, 2016). In particular, little
research focusing on the products and applications of FinTech like mobile
payment, crowdfunding, P2P lending, blockchain, bitcoin, personal finance,
equity financing, and internet insurance to test customer satisfaction and
Journey of Financial Technology 103

financial performance. We recognize that more research is needed for investing

interrelationship with emerging issues related with FinTech.
• Regulations. Wang et al. (2021) suggest that FinTech reduces the costs of
financial intermediation, but it also creates new regulatory issues. Likewise,
Fosso Wamba et al. (2020) claim that due to the absence of rules and regu-
lations, it is difficult to control, regulate, and pose a threat to the traditional
financial system. This may be another area for future studies that explores the
FinTech regulations for smooth functioning of the financial system.
• Artificial intelligence and robotic systems. Robots and Artificial Intelligence
(AI) are already developing societies ranging from manufacturing to service
and retail delivery. Belanche et al. (2019) investigate that robotic and AI sys-
tems are gradually replacing human jobs particularly in mechanical, analytical,
and empathic tasks. Researchers need to identify key determinants of cus-
tomers’ intent to use robo-advisors and AI-based systems.
• Research on risk management. Romānova and Kudinska (2016) report that the
development of FinTech forces additional risks for the banking industry like
additional pressure on margins, partial loss of the market share, increased
operational risk, and risk of fraud. Similarly, Lee and Shin (2018) conclude that
there are multiple risks for FinTech startups like financial risks and regulatory
risks. Overall, it is critical for FinTech firms to focus on risk management in
addition to technology management of the firm. As a result, we suggest these
areas may merit additional study.
• FinTech methods and statistical techniques. This article identifies relatively few
empirical (30 articles) and case studies (7 articles). More research is needed to
do empirical investigations for reflecting the interrelationship between key
independent variables, mediating, moderating, and dependent variables for
speedy development of FinTech. Some studies (43 articles) use few statistical
techniques like regression and PLS-SEM etc. for analyzing hidden facts.
Application of relevant statistical techniques may give new directions to Fin-
Tech research so that more statistically enriched studies are also needed.

REFERENCES
Agarwal, S., & Zhang, J. (2020). FinTech, lending and payment innovation: A review. Asia-Pacific
Journal of Financial Studies, 49(3), 353–367.
Ali, M., Raza, S. A., Khamis, B., Puah, C. H., & Amin, H. (2021). How perceived risk, benefit and
trust determine user FinTech adoption: A new dimension for Islamic finance. Foresight, 23(4),
403–420.
Alt, R., Beck, R., & Smits, M. T. (2018). FinTech and the transformation of the financial industry.
Electronic Markets, 28, 235, 243.
Anagnostopoulos, I. (2018). Fintech and Regtech: Impact on regulators and banks. Journal of Eco-
nomics and Business, 100, 7–25.
Arner, D. W., Zetzsche, D. A., Buckley, R. P., & Barberis, J. N. (2017). FinTech and RegTech:
Enabling innovation while preserving financial stability. Georgetown Journal of International
Affairs, 47–58.
Ashta, A., & Biot‐Paquerot, G. (2018). FinTech evolution: Strategic value management issues in a fast
changing industry. Strategic Change, 27(4), 301–311.
104 JITENDER KUMAR AND VINKI RANI

Au, A. (2021). FinTech innovation and knowledge flows in Hong Kong’s financial sector: A social
network analysis approach. Journal of Asia Business Studies, 16(2), 294–307.
Baber, H. (2020). FinTech, crowdfunding and customer retention in Islamic banks. Vision, 24(3),
260–268.
Belanche, D., Casaló, L. V., & Flavián, C. (2019). Artificial Intelligence in FinTech: Understanding
robo-advisors adoption among customers. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 119(7),
1411–1430.
Berman, A., Cano-Kollmann, M., & Mudambi, R. (2021). Innovation and entrepreneurial ecosystems:
FinTech in the financial services industry. Review of Managerial Science, 1–20.
Bernards, N. (2019). The poverty of FinTech? Psychometrics, credit infrastructures, and the limits of
financialization infrastructures, and the limits of financialization. Review of International
Political Economy, 26(5), 815–838.
Boot, A., Hoffmann, P., Laeven, L., & Ratnovski, L. (2021). FinTech: what’s old, what’s new? Journal
of Financial Stability, 53, 100836.
Breidbach, C. F., Keating, B. W., & Lim, C. (2019). Fintech: Research directions to explore the digital
transformation of financial service systems. Journal of Service Theory and Practice, 30(1),
79–102.
Brown, E., & Piroska, D. (2022). Governing fintech and fintech as governance: The regulatory
sandbox, riskwashing, and disruptive social classification. New Political Economy, 27(1), 19–32.
Bu, Y., Li, H., & Wu, X. (2021). Effective regulations of FinTech innovations: The case of China.
Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 1–19.
Cai, C. W. (2018). Disruption of financial intermediation by FinTech: A review on crowdfunding and
blockchain. Accounting and Finance, 58(4), 965–992.
Chen, L. (2016). From FinTech to Finlife: The case of FinTech development in China. China Economic
Journal, 9(3), 225–239.
Chen, X., You, X., & Chang, V. (2021). FinTech and commercial banks’ performance in China: A leap
forward or survival of the fittest? Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 166, 120645.
Coeckelbergh, M., DuPont, Q., & Reijers, W. (2018). Towards a philosophy of financial technologies.
Philosophy & Technology, 31(1), 9–14.
Coffie, C. P. K., Hongjiang, Z., Mensah, I. A., Kiconco, R., & Simon, A. E. O. (2021). Determinants
of FinTech payment services diffusion by SMEs in Sub-Saharan Africa: Evidence from Ghana.
Information Technology for Development, 27(3), 539–560.
Cojoianu, T. F., Clark, G. L., Hoepner, A. G., Pažitka, V., & Wójcik, D. (2020). Fin vs. tech: Are trust
and knowledge creation key ingredients in FinTech start-up emergence and financing? Small
Business Economics, 1–17.
Contreras Pinochet, L. H., Diogo, G. T., Lopes, E. L., Herrero, E., & Bueno, R. L. P. (2019).
Propensity of contracting loans services from FinTech’s in Brazil. International Journal of Bank
Marketing, 37(5), 1190–1214.
Cumming, D. J., & Schwienbacher, A. (2018). FinTech venture capital. Corporate Governance: An
International Review, 26(5), 374–389.
Darmansyah, D., Fianto, B. A., Hendratmi, A., & Aziz, P. F. (2020). Factors determining behavioral
intentions to use Islamic financial technology: Three competing models. Journal of Islamic
Marketing, 12(4), 794–812.
Das, A., & Das, D. (2020). Perception, adoption, and pattern of usage of FinTech services by bank
customers: Evidences from Hojai District of Assam. Emerging Economy Studies, 6(1), 7–22.
Demir, A., Pesqué-Cela, V., Altunbas, Y., & Murinde, V. (2020). FinTech, financial inclusion and
income inequality: A quantile regression approach. The European Journal of Finance, 1–22.
Drasch, B. J., Schweizer, A., & Urbach, N. (2018). Integrating the ‘Troublemakers’: A taxonomy for
cooperation between banks and FinTechs. Journal of Economics and Business, 100, 26–42.
Duran, R. E., & Griffin, P. (2021). Smart contracts: Will FinTech be the catalyst for the next global
financial crisis? Journal of Financial Regulation and Compliance, 29(1), 104–122.
Fosso Wamba, S., Kala Kamdjoug, J. R., Epie Bawack, R., & Keogh, J. G. (2020). Bitcoin, block-
chain and FinTech: A systematic review and case studies in the supply chain. Production
Planning & Control, 31(2–3), 115–142.
Journey of Financial Technology 105

Gabor, D., & Brooks, S. (2017). The digital revolution in financial inclusion: International develop-
ment in the FinTech era. New Political Economy, 22(4), 423–436.
Gai, K., Qiu, M., & Sun, X. (2018). A survey on FinTech. Journal of Network and Computer Appli-
cations, 103, 262–273.
Gazel, M., & Schwienbacher, A. (2020). Entrepreneurial FinTech clusters. Small Business Economics,
1–21.
Gimpel, H., Rau, D., & Röglinger, M. (2018). Understanding FinTech start-ups – A taxonomy of
consumer-oriented service offerings. Electronic Markets, 28(3), 245–264.
Gomber, P., Kauffman, R. J., Parker, C., & Weber, B. W. (2018a). Financial information systems and
the fintech revolution. Journal of Management Information system, 35(1), 12–18.
Gomber, P., Kauffman, R. J., Parker, C., & Weber, B. W. (2018b). On the FinTech revolution:
Interpreting the forces of innovation, disruption, and transformation in financial services.
Journal of Management Information Systems, 35(1), 220–265.
Gomber, P., Koch, J. A., & Siering, M. (2017). Digital Finance and FinTech: Current research and
future research directions. Journal of Business Economics, 87(5), 537–580.
Gozman, D., Liebenau, J., & Mangan, J. (2018). The innovation mechanisms of FinTech start-ups:
Insights from SWIFT’s in no tribe competition. Journal of Management Information Systems,
35(1), 145–179.
Haddad, C., & Hornuf, L. (2019). The emergence of the global FinTech market: Economic and
technological determinants. Small Business Economics, 53(1), 81–105.
Hasan, R., Ashfaq, M., & Shao, L. (2021). Evaluating drivers of FinTech adoption in The
Netherlands. Global Business Review. https://doi.org/10.1177/09721509211027402
Hasan, M. M., Yajuan, L., & Mahmud, A. (2020). Regional development of China’s inclusive finance
through financial technology. Sage Open, 10(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244019901252
Hoque, Z. (2014). 20 years of studies on the balanced scorecard: Trends, accomplishments, gaps and
opportunities for future research. The British Accounting Review, 46(1), 33–59.
Hornuf, L., Klus, M. F., Lohwasser, T. S., & Schwienbacher, A. (2021). How do banks interact with
FinTech startups? Small Business Economics, 57(3), 1505–1526.
Hua, X., Huang, Y., & Zheng, Y. (2019). Current practices, new insights, and emerging trends of
financial technologies. Industrial Management and Data Systems, 119(7), 1401–1410.
Hudaefi, F. A. (2020). How does Islamic FinTech promote the SDGs? Qualitative evidence from
Indonesia. Qualitative Research in Financial Markets, 12(4), 353–366.
Hung, J. L., & Luo, B. (2016). FinTech in Taiwan: A case study of a bank’s strategic planning for an
investment in a FinTech company. Financial Innovation, 2(1), 15.
Iman, N. (2018). Is mobile payment still relevant in the FinTech era? Electronic Commerce Research
and Applications, 30, 72–82.
Jagtiani, J., & John, K. (2018). FinTech: The impact on consumers and regulatory responses. Journal
of Economics and Business, 100, 1–6.
Jakšič, M., & Marinč, M. (2019). Relationship banking and information technology: The role of
artificial intelligence and FinTech. Risk Management, 21(1), 1–18.
Jinasena, D. N., Spanaki, K., Papadopoulos, T., & Balta, M. E. (2020). Success and failure retro-
spectives of FinTech projects: A case study approach. Information Systems Frontiers, 1–16.
Jünger, M., & Mietzner, M. (2020). Banking goes digital: The adoption of FinTech services by German
households. Finance Research Letters, 34, 101260.
Jun, J., & Yeo, E. (2016). Entry of FinTech firms and competition in the retail payments market.
Asia-Pacific Journal of Financial Studies, 45(2), 159–184.
Kang, J. (2018). Mobile payment in FinTech environment: Trends, security challenges, and services.
Human-centric Computing and Information Sciences, 8(1), 1–16.
Kanga, D., Oughton, C., Harris, L., & Murinde, V. (2021). The diffusion of FinTech, financial
inclusion and income per capita. The European Journal of Finance, 1–29.
Kharisma, D. B. (2021). Urgency of financial technology (FinTech) laws in Indonesia. International
Journal of Law and Management, 63(3), 320–331.
Knewtson, H. S., & Rosenbaum, Z. A. (2020). Toward understanding FinTech and its industry.
Managerial Finance, 46(8), 1043–1060.
106 JITENDER KUMAR AND VINKI RANI

Knight, E., & Wójcik, D. (2020). FinTech, economy and space: Introduction to the special issue.
Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 52(8), 1490–1497.
Kolokas, D., Vanacker, T., Veredas, D., & Zahra, S. A. (2020). Venture capital, credit, and FinTech
start-up formation: A cross-country study. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice. https://doi.
org/10.1177/1042258720972652
Kong, S. T., & Loubere, N. (2021). Digitally down to the countryside: FinTech and rural development
in China. Journal of Development Studies, 57(10), 1739–1754.
Kumar, J., Prince, N., & Baker, H. K. (2021). Balanced scorecard: A systematic literature review and
future research issues. FIIB Business Review. https://doi.org/10.1177/23197145211049625
Lagna, A., & Ravishankar, M. N. (2021). Making the world a better place with FinTech research.
Information Systems Journal, 1–42.
Laidroo, L., & Avarmaa, M. (2020). The role of location in FinTech formation. Entrepreneurship &
Regional Development, 32(7–8), 555–572.
Langley, P., & Leyshon, A. (2020). The platform political economy of FinTech: Reintermediation,
consolidation and capitalisation. New Political Economy, 1–13.
Le, T. L., Abakah, E. J. A., & Tiwari, A. K. (2021). Time and frequency domain connectedness and
spill-over among FinTech, green bonds and crypto currencies in the age of the fourth industrial
revolution. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 162, 120382.
Lee, I., & Shin, Y. J. (2018). FinTech: Ecosystem, business models, investment decisions, and chal-
lenges. Business Horizons, 61(1), 35–46.
Leong, C., Tan, B., Xiao, X., Tan, F. T. C., & Sun, Y. (2017). Nurturing a FinTech ecosystem: The
case of a youth microloan startup in China. International Journal of Information Management,
37(2), 92–97.
Li, G., Dai, J. S., Park, E. M., & Park, S. T. (2017). A study on the service and trend of FinTech
security based on text-mining: Focused on the data of Korean online news. Journal of Com-
puter Virology and Hacking Techniques, 13(4), 249–255.
Lim, S. H., Kim, D. J., Hur, Y., & Park, K. (2019). An empirical study of the impacts of perceived
security and knowledge on continuous intention to use mobile FinTech payment services.
International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 35(10), 886–898.
Li, Y., Spigt, R., & Swinkels, L. (2017). The impact of FinTech start-ups on incumbent retail banks’
share prices. Financial Innovation, 3(1), 26.
Liu, Y., Saleem, S., Shabbir, R., Shabbir, M. S., Irshad, A., & Khan, S. (2021). The relationship
between corporate social responsibility and financial performance: A moderate role of FinTech
technology. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 28(16), 20174–20187.
Ma, Y., & Liu, D. (2017). Introduction to the special issue on crowdfunding and FinTech. Financial
Innovation, 3(1), 3–6.
Mazambani, L., & Mutambara, E. (2019). Predicting FinTech innovation adoption in South Africa:
The case of crypto currency. African Journal of Economic and Management Studies, 11(1),
30–50.
Milian, E. Z., Spinola, M. D. M., & de Carvalho, M. M. (2019). FinTechs: A literature review and
research agenda. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 34, 100833.
Mumtaz, M. Z., & Smith, Z. A. (2020). Empirical examination of the role of FinTech in monetary
policy. Pacific Economic Review, 25(5), 620–640.
Nakashima, T. (2018). Creating credit by making use of mobility with FinTech and IoT. IATSS
Research, 42(2), 61–66.
Namchoochai, R., Kiattisin, S., Darakorn Na Ayuthaya, S., & Arunthari, S. (2020). Elimination of
FinTech risks to achieve sustainable quality improvement. Wireless Personal Communications,
1–16.
Ng, A. W., & Kwok, B. K. (2017). Emergence of FinTech and cybersecurity in a global financial
centre. Journal of Financial Regulation and Compliance, 25(4), 422–434.
Nikkel, B. (2020). FinTech forensics: Criminal investigation and digital evidence in financial tech-
nologies. Forensic Science International: Digital Investigation, 33, 200908.
Okoli, T. T., & Tewari, D. D. (2020). Investigating the determinants and growth of financial tech-
nology depth of penetration among the heterogeneous Africa economies. Cogent Economics &
Finance, 8(1), 1838691.
Journey of Financial Technology 107

Ozili, P. K. (2020). Banking sector earnings management using loan loss provisions in the FinTech era.
International Journal of Managerial Finance, 18(1), 75–93.
Panos, G. A., & Wilson, J. O. (2020). Financial literacy and responsible finance in the FinTech era:
Capabilities and challenges. The European Journal of Finance, 26, 297–301.
Rana, S., Raut, S. K., Prashar, S., & Hamid, A. B. A. (2020). Promoting through consumer nostalgia:
A conceptual framework and future research agenda. Journal of Promotion Management, 27(2),
211–249.
Rana, S., & Sharma, S. K. (2015). A literature review, classification, and simple meta-analysis on the
conceptual domain of international marketing: 1990–2012. Entrepreneurship in International
Marketing, 189–222. (Advances in International Marketing, Vol. 25), Emerald Group Pub-
lishing Limited, Bingley.
Romānova, I., & Kudinska, M. (2016). Banking and FinTech: A challenge or opportunity? In
contemporary issues in finance. Current Challenges From Across Europe, 98, 21–35.
Roszkowska, P. (2021). FinTech in financial reporting and audit for fraud prevention and safeguarding
equity investments. Journal of Accounting and Organizational Change, 17(2), 164–196.
Ryu, H. S. (2018). What makes users willing or hesitant to use FinTech?: The moderating effect of user
type. Industrial Management & Data Systems. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 118(3),
541–569.
Sangwan, V., Prakash, P., & Singh, S. (2019). Financial technology: A review of extant literature.
Studies in Economics and Finance, 37(1), 71–88.
Santoso, W., Sitorus, P. M., Batunanggar, S., Krisanti, F. T., Anggadwita, G., & Alamsyah, A. (2020).
Talent mapping: A strategic approach toward digitalization initiatives in the banking and
financial technology (FinTech) industry in Indonesia. Journal of Science and Technology Policy
Management, 12(3), 399–420.
Serrano, W. (2018). FinTech model: The random neural network with genetic algorithm. Procedia
Computer Science, 126, 537–546.
Shaikh, I. M., Qureshi, M. A., Noordin, K., Shaikh, J. M., Khan, A., & Shahbaz, M. S. (2020).
Acceptance of Islamic financial technology (FinTech) banking services by Malaysian users: An
extension of technology acceptance model. Foresight, 22(3), 367–383.
Shiau, W. L., Yuan, Y., Pu, X., Ray, S., & Chen, C. C. (2020). Understanding FinTech continuance:
Perspectives from self-efficacy and ECT-IS theories. Industrial Management & Data Systems,
120(9), 1659–1689.
Shim, Y., & Shin, D. H. (2016). Analyzing China’s FinTech industry from the perspective of
Actor-Network theory. Telecommunications Policy, 40(2–3), 168–181.
Siddiqui, T. A., & Siddiqui, K. I. (2020). FinTech in India: An analysis on impact of telecommuni-
cation on financial inclusion. Strategic Change, 29(3), 321–330.
Singh, S., Sahni, M. M., & Kovid, R. K. (2020). What drives FinTech adoption? A multi-method
evaluation using an adapted technology acceptance model. Management Decision, 58(80),
1675–1697.
Sohns, F., & Wójcik, D. (2020). The impact of Brexit on London’s entrepreneurial ecosystem: The case
of the FinTech industry. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 52(8), 1539–1559.
Stern, C., Makinen, M., & Qian, Z. (2017). FinTechs in China–with a special focus on peer to peer
lending. Journal of Chinese Economic and Foreign Trade Studies, 10(3), 215–228.
Stewart, H., & Jürjens, J. (2018). Data security and consumer trust in FinTech innovation in Germany.
Information and Computer Security, 26(1), 109–128.
Sung, A., Leong, K., Sironi, P., O’Reilly, T., & McMillan, A. (2019). An exploratory study of the
FinTech (Financial Technology) education and retraining in UK. Journal of Work-Applied
Management, 11(2), 187–198.
Susilo, A. Z., Prabowo, M. I., Taman, A., Pustikaningsih, A., & Samlawi, A. (2019). A comparative
study of factors affecting user acceptance of GO-PAY and OVO as a Feature of FinTech
application. Procedia Computer Science, 161, 876–884.
Swartz, K. L. (2017). Stored value facilities: Changing the FinTech landscape in Hong Kong. The
Journal of Investment Compliance, 18(1), 107–110.
Thakor, A. V. (2020). Corrigendum to: FinTech and banking: What do we know? Journal of Financial
Intermediation, 43(C).
108 JITENDER KUMAR AND VINKI RANI

Thompson, B. S. (2017). Can financial technology innovate benefit distribution in payments for
ecosystem services and REDD1? Ecological Economics, 139, 150–157.
Todorof, M. (2018). Shariah-compliant FinTech in the banking industry. ERA Forum, 19(1), 1–17.
Todorof, M. (2019). FinTech on the dark web: The rise of Cryptos. ERA Forum, 20(1), 1–20.
Utami, A. F., & Ekaputra, I. A. (2021). A paradigm shift in financial landscape: Encouraging
collaboration and innovation among Indonesian FinTech lending players. Journal of Science
and Technology Policy Management, 12(2), 309–330.
Wang, R., Liu, J., & Luo, H. (2021). FinTech development and bank risk taking in China. The
European Journal of Finance, 27(4–5), 397–418.
Wang, Y., Xiuping, S., & Zhang, Q. (2021). Can FinTech improve the efficiency of commercial
banks?—an analysis based on big data. Research in International Business and Finance, 55,
101338.
Wang, Z., Zhengzhi Gordon, G. U. A. N., Hou, F., Li, B., & Zhou, W. (2019). What determines
customers’ continuance intention of FinTech? Evidence from YuEbao. Industrial Management
& Data Systems, 119(8), 1625–1637.
Wójcik, D. (2020). Financial geography II: The impacts of FinTech–Financial sector and centres,
regulation and stability, inclusion and governance. Progress in Human Geography, 45(4),
878–889.
Wonglimpiyarat, J. (2017). FinTech banking industry: A systemic approach. Foresight, 19(6), 590–603.
Yao, T., & Song, L. (2021). Examining the differences in the impact of FinTech on the economic
capital of commercial banks’ market risk: Evidence from a panel system GMM analysis.
Applied Economics, 53(23), 2647–2660.
Yeh, J. Y., & Chen, C. H. (2020). A machine learning approach to predict the success of crowdfunding
FinTech project. Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 107.
Yoon, K. S., & Jun, J. (2019). Liability and antifraud investment in FinTech retail payment services.
Contemporary Economic Policy, 37(1), 181–194.
Zavolokina, L., Dolata, M., & Schwabe, G. (2016). The FinTech phenomenon: Antecedents of
financial innovation perceived by the popular press. Financial Innovation, 2(1), 1–16.
Zhang, A., Wang, S., Liu, B., & Liu, P. (2020). How FinTech impacts pre- and post-loan risk in
Chinese commercial banks. International Journal of Finance & Economics, 1–16.