| چکیده انگلیسی مقاله |
Introduction
Governance has always been a key focus throughout history across various levels of authority. The rise and expansion of the financial technology (Fintech) industry have introduced new and diverse challenges for policymakers, highlighting the growing need for an appropriate governance framework. Current global studies on Fintech governance primarily focus on the business and organizational levels, and limited research has been conducted on this topic in Iran. On a macro level, only a few studies have explored the governance of Fintech beyond the enterprise level, although it is seen as a growing field. Therefore, the need for macro-level governance in Fintech is evident both globally and in Iran. This study aims to address the question: What are the governance dimensions and components applicable to the Fintech industry? Based on this, the research seeks to develop a comprehensive framework for governance in Fintech.
Methods and Materoal
This research follows a mixed-methods approach. In the qualitative phase, key terms such as governance, Fintech, and Fintech governance were selected as the foundation for reviewing previous studies. Using meta-synthesis and content analysis, various topics related to governance and Fintech governance were collected and categorized. Data were gathered from the Scopus and Science Direct databases, and studies were filtered based on the relevance of their titles, abstracts, methodologies, and findings. A total of 28 articles were selected for meta-synthesis, and content analysis was conducted to identify governance components relevant to the Fintech industry. Some studies directly addressed governance components applicable to Fintech, while others discussed challenges within Fintech that require governance. Both aspects were incorporated into the proposed framework, leading to an initial framework of governance components for Fintech.
In the quantitative phase, the identified components were validated using the fuzzy Delphi method and potential correlations among them were explored through exploratory factor analysis (EFA). The fuzzy Delphi method was conducted using Excel with input from 15 experts, while EFA was performed using SPSS with data from 217 experts. These experts held advanced degrees in fields such as industrial management, IT management, strategic management, and public administration, with at least five years of experience in governance or Fintech management. Their insights were collected via a standardized questionnaire and analyzed accordingly. Ultimately, the final framework, comprising validated dimensions and components for Fintech governance, was presented.
Resultss
The meta-synthesis of articles on governance, Fintech, and Fintech governance identified seven components: policymaking, foresight, facilitation, regulation, infrastructure development, monitoring, and evaluation. Expert opinions on these seven governance components, as well as on Fintech and Fintech governance, were collected through a standardized fuzzy Delphi questionnaire. Standard fuzzy Delphi calculations were then applied, and the fuzzy values for each component were determined. After fuzzification, a defuzzification process was conducted to convert fuzzy values into definitive ones. The final definitive values for each component were calculated as follows: policymaking (0.82), foresight (0.71), facilitation (0.79), regulation (0.81), infrastructure development (0.71), monitoring (0.77), and evaluation (0.76). According to the fuzzy Delphi method, the acceptable definitive value for each component is 0.7, indicating that all components meet the acceptable threshold, thereby confirming all seven components.
After confirming the components, it was necessary to examine whether any latent internal correlations existed between them, allowing for their reduction into broader factors. To this end, the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy and Bartlett's test of sphericity were applied to the components based on expert opinions. The KMO value was found to be 0.787, indicating that the components could be reduced to a number of underlying factors and that the sample size was sufficient. Additionally, Bartlett's test showed good correlations among the components within each factor.
To ensure the accuracy of the component categorization, the dimensions were first identified, and each dimension was then named according to the nature of the variables within it. The variance for each component was calculated, and the total variance explained by the extracted dimensions after rotation was determined. These values, known as eigenvalues, indicate the factors that remain in the analysis and the dimensions that can be extracted. Three factors, in total, accounted for 47.7% of the variance across all variables. These three dimensions were named regulation, strategy, and provision. According to Table 1, the components of monitoring and evaluation fell under the "regulation" dimension, the components of policymaking and foresight were grouped under the "strategy" dimension, and the components of facilitation, infrastructure development, and regulation were placed under the "provision" dimension.
Table (1). Rotated Factor Matrix | Factor (Dimension) | Component | Dimension Name | | 3 | 2 | 1 | | | 0.631 | Monitoring | Regulation | | | 0.715 | Evaluation | | 0.548 | | Policymaking | Strategy | | 0.720 | | Foresight | | 0.637 | | | Facilitation | Provision | | 0.672 | | | Infrastructure | | 0.437 | | | Regulation |
The consolidation of these dimensions and components of governance for Fintech forms the final framework that this research aims to achieve.
Conclusion and Recommendations
In governance, some tasks are fundamental, while others are specific to the needs of the Fintech industry and must be governed. The integration of these two approaches forms the proposed governance framework. Current discussions on Fintech governance mainly focus on the organizational and business levels, with limited recent research, both in Iran and globally, addressing macro-level governance for Fintech. According to Rostoy (2019), the unique challenges and issues introduced by Fintech require a new form of governance, which strengthens the foundation of this study.
By compiling and summarizing governance components and key issues for Fintech governance, seven components were identified: foresight, policymaking (Taati et al., 2021; Payandeh & Afghahi, 2023), facilitation, regulation (Sharifzadeh & Gholipour, 2003), infrastructure development (Rostoy, 2019), monitoring, and evaluation (Abrahams, 2015). After validating these components, latent correlations between them were identified, resulting in three dimensions: strategy, provision, and regulation. The strategy dimension includes foresight and policymaking, the provision dimension includes facilitation, infrastructure development, and regulation, and the regulation dimension covers monitoring and evaluation. These three dimensions form a cyclical and iterative process, with governance beginning with strategy as its foundation.
Strategic foresight and policymaking are critical to starting the governance process. Policymakers and decision-makers at the national level must implement governance through strategic planning and foresight. The consideration of macro trends and the Fintech industry’s outlook is crucial for governance under the foresight component. Policymaking involves the development of national and sectoral strategies and policies that, together with foresight, form the strategic governance process.
The provision aspect focuses on preparing the governing authorities to foster and support the growth of the Fintech industry. This includes measures such as facilitation, infrastructure development, and regulation. Facilitation, for instance, can be implemented both through soft measures (like legislation) and hard measures (such as platform and system development). The governing body, as the supreme authority, is well-positioned to oversee critical national issues like the economy and national security, thus possessing both the legal and technical power to facilitate Fintech growth. Governance is also evolving toward greater regulation, which is highly relevant and applicable to the Fintech industry.
Finally, in the last phase of the governance cycle, regulation occurs through monitoring and evaluation. To fulfill its duties towards the public good and oversee the performance of Fintech companies, the governing body must monitor the industry and evaluate its performance to ensure accountability and, if necessary, exert control and make corrections. In other words, through regulation, the Fintech industry is held accountable for its performance, and this accountability is achieved through monitoring and evaluation.
Given Iran’s political-economic structure, governance over industries, and the prevailing Islamic laws and regulations, the proposed governance framework for Fintech is applicable to Iran as well. This governance model, with a 360-degree perspective on both the specific challenges of Fintech and the general duties of governance, ensures the alignment of the Fintech industry with Iran’s macroeconomic policies. Furthermore, collaboration and synergy between the Fintech industry and the governing authorities will lead to the growth and development of the sector while ensuring the protection of public interests and citizens' rights. As such, all three pillars of governance, as outlined by Graham et al. (2003), will be balanced: the governing body fulfills its responsibilities toward society, the industry achieves its desired growth, and society benefits from the industry's advancements while safeguarding its rights.
Recommendations for the use and further development of this governance framework are as follows. First, national-level policymakers should expand the seven governance components identified in this study and apply them in accordance with their duties and responsibilities to govern the Fintech industry. Second, clarity in definitions and processes related to each component or dimension will be beneficial for both Fintech and the governing body, helping to avoid many challenges and conflicts in practice, which should be addressed by the governing body as needed. Third, while the authors have endeavored to create comprehensive dimensions and components for governance, there is room for the addition of further components and the extraction of new dimensions. Future researchers are encouraged to explore and expand upon these aspects.
|
