Digital Platform Power and Social Development in the Global South: A Systematic Literature Review
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.58421/misro.v5i3.2054Keywords:
Digital platform power, Social development, Algorithmic governance, Global South, Political economy, ICT4D, Welfare governanceAbstract
Background: Digital platforms increasingly mediate welfare, services, finance, labour, and entrepreneurship, while research on platform power remains fragmented and Global-North dominated. Gap: Platform political economy, algorithmic governance, data extraction, and inclusion are rarely integrated with development theory or Global South evidence. Objective: This study maps these gaps and develops a structural synthesis. Method: An interpretive systematic review of 30 Scopus-retrieved scholarly publications (journal articles and scholarly books/book chapters) published in 2010–2025 used PRISMA reporting and thematic–geographic coding. Results: Algorithmic governance dominated (18; 60%); resistance (9; 30%), infrastructure (8; 27%), and data colonialism/digital sovereignty (7; 23%) followed. Five studies (17%) engaged development theory; four (13%) focused directly on the Global South. Conclusion: The review develops a four-dimensional typology rather than a validated causal model. Implications: The framework extends dependency, developmental-state, and capability perspectives and guides future empirical testing.
Downloads
References
World Bank, World Development Report 2016: Digital Dividends. Washington, DC, USA: World Bank, 2016.
R. Heeks, Information and Communication Technology for Development (ICT4D). London, U.K.: Routledge, 2018.
C. Avgerou, “Discourses on ICT and development,” Information Technologies & International Development, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 1–18, 2010.
T. Unwin, Reclaiming Information and Communication Technologies for Development. Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press, 2017.
N. Srnicek, Platform Capitalism. Cambridge, U.K.: Polity Press, 2017.
H. Peng, Y. Lu, and S. Gupta, “Promoting value emergence through digital platform ecosystems: Perspectives on resource integration in China,” Technological Forecasting and Social Change, vol. 189, Art. no. 122338, 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2023.122338.
R. Heeks, “Information systems and developing countries: Failure, success, and local improvisations,” The Information Society, vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 101–112, 2002.
D. Kleine, Technologies of Choice? ICTs, Development, and the Capabilities Approach. Cambridge, MA, USA: MIT Press, 2013.
S. Zuboff, The Age of Surveillance Capitalism: The Fight for a Human Future at the New Frontier of Power. New York, NY, USA: PublicAffairs, 2019.
N. Couldry and U. A. Mejias, The Costs of Connection: How Data Is Colonizing Human Life and Appropriating It for Capitalism. Stanford, CA, USA: Stanford University Press, 2019.
D. Beer, “The social power of algorithms,” Information, Communication & Society, vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 1–13, 2017, doi: 10.1080/1369118X.2016.1216147.
A. G. Frank, Capitalism and Underdevelopment in Latin America. New York, NY, USA: Monthly Review Press, 1967.
F. H. Cardoso and E. Faletto, Dependency and Development in Latin America. Berkeley, CA, USA: University of California Press, 1979.
C. Johnson, MITI and the Japanese Miracle: The Growth of Industrial Policy, 1925–1975. Stanford, CA, USA: Stanford University Press, 1982.
P. Evans, Embedded Autonomy: States and Industrial Transformation. Princeton, NJ, USA: Princeton University Press, 1995.
A. Sen, Development as Freedom. New York, NY, USA: Alfred A. Knopf, 1999.
R. Mansell and U. Wehn, Knowledge Societies: Information Technology for Sustainable Development. Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press, 1998.
C. Aradau and T. Blanke, “The (Big) Data-security assemblage: Knowledge and critique,” Big Data & Society, vol. 2, no. 2, 2015, doi: 10.1177/2053951715609066.
C. O’Neil, Weapons of Math Destruction: How Big Data Increases Inequality and Threatens Democracy. New York, NY, USA: Crown, 2016.
V. Eubanks, Automating Inequality: How High-Tech Tools Profile, Police, and Punish the Poor. New York, NY, USA: St. Martin’s Press, 2018.
C. D’Ignazio and L. F. Klein, Data Feminism. Cambridge, MA, USA: MIT Press, 2020.
B. Lepri, N. Oliver, E. Letouzé, A. Pentland, and P. Vinck, “Fair, transparent, and accountable algorithmic decision-making processes,” Philosophy & Technology, vol. 31, no. 4, pp. 611–627, 2018, doi: 10.1007/s13347-017-0279-x.
M. H. Jarrahi, G. Newlands, M. K. Lee, C. T. Wolf, E. Kinder, and W. Sutherland, “Algorithmic management in a work context,” Big Data & Society, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 1–14, 2021, doi: 10.1177/20539517211020332.
S. U. Noble, Algorithms of Oppression: How Search Engines Reinforce Racism. New York, NY, USA: New York University Press, 2018.
D. Tranfield, D. Denyer, and P. Smart, “Towards a methodology for developing evidence-informed management knowledge by means of systematic review,” British Journal of Management, vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 207–222, 2003.
H. Snyder, “Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines,” Journal of Business Research, vol. 104, pp. 333–339, 2019, doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.07.039.
M. J. Page et al., “The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews,” BMJ, vol. 372, p. n71, 2021, doi: 10.1136/bmj.n71.
C. Okoli, “A critical realist guide to developing theory with systematic literature reviews,” SSRN, 2012, doi: 10.2139/ssrn.2115818.
B. Bygstad, B. E. Munkvold, and O. Volkoff, “Identifying generative mechanisms through affordances: A framework for critical realist data analysis,” Journal of Information Technology, vol. 31, no. 1, pp. 83–96, 2016, doi: 10.1057/jit.2015.13.
N. Dados and R. Connell, “The Global South,” Contexts, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 12–13, 2012, doi: 10.1177/1536504212436479.
K. C. Kellogg, M. A. Valentine, and A. Christin, “Algorithms at work: The new contested terrain of control,” Academy of Management Annals, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 366–410, 2020, doi: 10.5465/annals.2018.0174.
Downloads
Additional Files
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Journal of Mathematics Instruction, Social Research and Opinion

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

















