Abstract
In the context of the accelerating digital transformation of financial markets, microfinance institutions (MFIs) are playing an increasingly significant role in ensuring financial inclusion and stimulating economic activity, particularly in developing countries. Russia and Uzbekistan demonstrate different models of microfinance sector development shaped by institutional, regulatory, and technological factors.
The aim of this study is to conduct a comprehensive comparative analysis of the microfinance systems of Russia and Uzbekistan, with a focus on their transformation under digitalization, as well as to identify the key factors influencing the efficiency of MFIs. The study examines the characteristics of the regulatory environment, the level of digital integration, access to financial services, and institutional constraints that determine the strategic behavior of market participants.
The methodological framework includes comparative analysis, elements of institutional theory (D. North), the concept of regulatory constraints, and quantitative methods for assessing the dynamics of key indicators (assets, loan portfolio, non-performing loans, profitability, and digital engagement). Particular attention is given to the development of integrated indicators such as the Strategic Stability Index and the Regulatory Pressure Index.
The scientific novelty of the research lies in the development of a conceptual model of regulatory-constrained strategic management of microfinance institutions, as well as in substantiating the possibility of forming microfinance ecosystems through the integration of payment organization functions without transforming into a banking structure.
The results show that the microfinance sector in Russia is characterized by a higher level of institutional maturity and digitalization, whereas Uzbekistan is experiencing an active phase of growth and transformation, accompanied by an increasing role of the regulator and the emergence of new financial ecosystems. The study concludes that there is a need to develop hybrid models of MFI development that combine digital technologies, regulatory adaptability, and an ecosystem-based approach.
References
1. Cull R., Demirgüç-Kunt A., Morduch J. Microfinance meets the market // Journal of Economic Perspectives. — 2009. — Vol. 23, №1. — С. 167–192.
2. Armendáriz B., Morduch J. The Economics of Microfinance. — 2-е изд. — Cambridge: MIT Press, 2010. — 346 с.
3. North D.C. Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance. — Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990. — 152 с.
4. Beck T., Demirgüç-Kunt A. Access to finance: an unfinished agenda // World Bank Economic Review. — 2008. — Vol. 22, №3. — С. 383–396.
5. Gomber P., Koch J.-A., Siering M. Digital finance and FinTech: current research and future research directions // Journal of Business Economics. — 2017. — Vol. 87, №5. — С. 537–580. — DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11573-017-0852-x
6. Philippon T. The FinTech opportunity // NBER Working Paper. — 2016. — № 22476. — DOI: https://doi.org/10.3386/w22476
7. Frost J., Gambacorta L., Huang Y., Shin H.S., Zbinden P. BigTech and the changing structure of financial intermediation // BIS Working Papers. — 2019. — № 779.
8. Maimbo S.M., Gallegos C.A.H. Interest rate caps around the world: still popular, but a blunt instrument. — Washington: World Bank, 2014.
9. Ledgerwood J. The New Microfinance Handbook. — Washington: World Bank Publications, 2013. — 776 с.
10. Barth J.R., Caprio G., Levine R. Bank regulation and supervision in 180 countries from 1999 to 2011 // Journal of Financial Economic Policy. — 2013. — Vol. 5, №2. — С. 111–219.
11. Moore J.F. Predators and prey: a new ecology of competition // Harvard Business Review. — 1993. — Vol. 71, №3. — С. 75–86.
12. Iansiti M., Levien R. Strategy as ecology // Harvard Business Review. — 2004. — Vol. 82, №3. — С. 68–78.
13. Gawer A., Cusumano M.A. Industry platforms and ecosystem innovation // Journal of Product Innovation Management. — 2014. — Vol. 31, №3. — С. 417–433.
14. Zetzsche D.A., Buckley R.P., Arner D.W., Barberis J.N. From FinTech to TechFin: the regulatory challenges of data-driven finance // European Banking Institute Working Paper. — 2020.
15. Chen M.A., Wu Q., Yang B. How valuable is FinTech innovation? // Review of Financial Studies. — 2019. — Vol. 32, №5. — С. 2062–2106. — DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/rfs/hhz051
16. World Bank. Global Financial Development Report 2022: Financial Inclusion and Development. — URL: https://www.worldbank.org
17. Central Bank of the Russian Federation. Financial Market Development Report 2023. — URL: https://www.cbr.ru
18. Central Bank of Uzbekistan. Annual Report 2023. — URL: https://cbu.uz
19. OECD. Digital Financial Services and Financial Inclusion. — Paris: OECD Publishing, 2021.
20. IMF. Fintech and Financial Services: Initial Considerations. — Washington: IMF, 2019.
21. World Bank. Fintech and the Future of Finance. — 2021. — URL: https://www.worldbank.org
22. Claessens S., Frost J., Turner G., Zhu F. Fintech credit markets // Journal of Financial Stability. — 2018. — Vol. 35. — P. 230–242.
23. Arner D.W., Barberis J., Buckley R.P. The evolution of Fintech // Georgetown Journal of International Law. — 2016. — Vol. 47. — P. 1271–1319.
24. FSB. Financial Stability Implications of FinTech. — Basel: Financial Stability Board, 2017.
25. Demirgüç-Kunt A., Klapper L., Singer D., Ansar S., Hess J. Global Findex Database 2021 // World Bank

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Copyright (c) 2026 Innovation economy