DIGITAL AND INSTITUTIONAL INSTRUMENTS FOR POVERTY REDUCTION

Authors

  • Mihail Ciobanu National Institute of Economic Research, Academy of Economic Education of Moldova, Republic of Moldova

Keywords:

digital financial inclusion, institutional quality, poverty reduction, e-governance, fintech, institutional economics, sustainable development goals (SDGs), digital divide, twin transition, social protection.

Abstract

In the contemporary discourse on global development, the eradication of poverty has evolved from a focus on simple resource transfer to a complex interrogation of structural capabilities, market access, and governance frameworks. As the global economy undergoes a profound digital transformation, the mechanisms available for poverty reduction have expanded to include a sophisticated array of digital instruments, from mobile financial services and biometric identification systems to e-governance platforms and digital agricultural extension services. However, a growing body of empirical evidence suggests that the efficacy of these digital interventions is critically dependent on the quality of the institutional environment in which they are deployed. This research report provides an analysis of the interplay between digital and institutional instruments for poverty reduction. Drawing on a wide range of research, policy reviews, and regional case analyses this paper argues that digital and institutional instruments must be viewed as complementary forces in a „twin transition” toward inclusive development. The analysis reveals that while digital tools offer unprecedented opportunities to lower transaction costs, reduce information asymmetries, and enhance the reach of social protection, their impact is frequently moderated by institutional thresholds such as the rule of law, control of corruption, and regulatory quality. Furthermore, we identify how digital instruments can themselves serve as catalysts for institutional reform by enhancing transparency and accountability, provided that the underlying “institutional voids” are addressed through targeted policy interventions. The article was elaborated within the Project selected in competition „Stimulating excellence in scientific research 2025-2026” 25.80012.0807.37SE „The  perfection  of  instruments  for  reducing  income  inequality  and  reducing  poverty  of  the  population  in  the process of European integration of the Republic of Moldova”, institutional funding, ANCD.

References

1.Acemoglu, D., & Robinson, J. A. (2012). Why nations fail: The origins of power, prosperity, and poverty. Crown Publishing Group-A Division of Random House, Inc., New York.

2.Asongu, S. A., & Odhiambo, N. M. (2021). Income levels, governance and inclusive human development in Sub-Saharan Africa. Applied Research in Quality of Life, 16(1), 71–103. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11482-019-09755-8

3.Bastiaensen, J., De Herdt, T., & D'Exelle, B. (2005). Poverty reduction as a local institutional process. World Development, 33(6), 979–993. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2004.09.019

4.Kanbur, R. (2017). The Digital Revolution and Targeting Public Expenditure for Poverty Reduction (June 2017). CEPR Discussion Paper No. DP12089, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2988847

5.Lechman, E., & Popowska, M. (2022). Harnessing digital technologies for poverty reduction. Evidence for low-income and lower-middle income countries. Telecommunications Policy, 46(6), 102313. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.telpol.2022.102313

6.North, D. C. (2012). Institutions, institutional change and economic performance. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511808678

7.Sen, A. (1999). Development as freedom. Oxford University Press.

8.Soluk, J., Kammerlander, N., & Darwin, S. (2021). Digital entrepreneurship in developing countries: The role of institutional voids. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 170, Article 120876. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2021.120876

9.Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (2000). A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies. Management Science, 46(2), 186–204. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.46.2.186.11926

Published

2026-05-13