M-Pesa — how a country skipped banks

The conventional wisdom surrounding Kenya's M-Pesa is a story of software brilliance and regulatory enlightenment. Global observers and development economists routinely assume that a nimble telecommunications company wrote a clever application, a progressive central bank created a permissive regulatory sandbox, and millions of unbanked citizens seamlessly leaped into the digital age. This assumption is fundamentally incorrect. M-Pesa did not succeed because it was a superior financial technology (fintech) product, nor did it thrive primarily because of agile, "test-and-learn" regulation. M-Pesa worked in Kenya—and struggled to replicate that exact success elsewhere—because, at the time of its launch in 2007, Safaricom controlled an overwhelming 70% to 80% of the Kenyan telecommunications market ^1,2. Furthermore, it already possessed a sprawling, nationwide physical network of airtime dealers ^2,3,4.

The narrative that positions mobile money in East Africa as a triumph of coding and policy fundamentally misreads the mechanics of the market. The true story of how Kenya skipped traditional commercial banking is an infrastructure monopoly narrative. Safaricom simply repurposed an existing, trusted physical distribution network that sold prepaid scratch cards, turning it into a vast liquidity network for digital cash ⁴.

Today, this infrastructure commands staggering economic power, processing billions of transactions and acting as the foundational payment rail for an entire nation ^5,6. Yet, this dominance has triggered a fierce and highly polarized debate. As the platform transitions from facilitating simple peer-to-peer (P2P) transfers into dispensing high-interest digital credit, severe macroeconomic cracks are beginning to show. Critics argue the platform has morphed from a public utility into an extractive apparatus ^7,8.

This report provides an exhaustive examination of the M-Pesa ecosystem. It addresses the strongest evidence of Kenya bypassing the traditional banking sector, deconstructs the persistent misconceptions regarding the platform's origin and success, analyzes the intense academic backlash against its purported poverty-reduction capabilities, and outlines the recent macroeconomic, regulatory, and corporate shifts that indicate this parallel economy is entering a volatile new era.

1. The Leapfrog: Evidence of a Country Bypassing Banks

The strongest available evidence that Kenya "skipped" traditional banking lies in the sheer volume of capital moving through mobile networks relative to the traditional financial system, juxtaposed with the unparalleled physical density of the agent network that facilitates it. To understand the magnitude of this leapfrog, one must look at the baseline conditions that existed prior to 2007.

The Era of Exclusion and the Birth of a Parallel Economy

In 2006, the Kenyan financial landscape was defined by exclusion. Only 26.7% of the adult population had access to formal financial services, such as commercial bank accounts or regulated money transfers ^9,10. Approximately 41.3% of the population was entirely excluded from both formal and informal financial services, while the remainder relied heavily on informal mechanisms like rotating savings and credit associations (ROSCAs) or the physical transport of cash via friends, family, and bus networks ^9,11. Commercial banks were highly concentrated in Nairobi and a few secondary urban centers. Opening an account required a physical address, a formal employment payslip, and minimum balance thresholds—criteria that the vast majority of rural and informally employed Kenyans could not meet ^9,12.

Fast forward to the present, and the transformation is absolute. Kenya now boasts a financial inclusion rate exceeding 90%, the highest in sub-Saharan Africa, driven almost entirely by mobile money penetration ^13,14,15,16. The Central Bank of Kenya (CBK) reported 82 million mobile accounts in a country with a population of approximately 56 million, demonstrating a market that has effectively reached and surpassed saturation due to multi-SIM ownership ^3,17.

The "Human ATM" Infrastructure

The most tangible evidence that a country skipped banks is the physical footprint of its financial distribution network. Traditional banking requires immense capital expenditure—secure physical branches, automated teller machines (ATMs), armored transport, and complex security infrastructure. Kenya circumvented this capital-intensive phase through the creation of a decentralized, hyper-local agent network.

M-Pesa turned shopkeepers, petrol station attendants, and local pharmacists into "human ATMs" ². By the end of 2010, just three years post-launch, there were already more M-Pesa agents in Kenya than the combined total of bank branches, post offices, and ATMs ^2,18. The agent network grew to cover territory that no bank in Kenyan history had ever reached. At its peak density, Nairobi hosted more M-Pesa agents per square kilometer than London hosted ATMs ¹².

By the third quarter of the 2025/2026 financial year, the Communications Authority of Kenya reported an astounding 602,470 registered mobile money agents across the country ^5,6. In deeply rural and marginalized counties like Marsabit, Wajir, and West Pokot—where commercial bank presence is virtually nonexistent—these agents operate as the sole financial infrastructure for entire communities ¹². These agents solve the critical "cash-in/cash-out" liquidity constraint, accepting physical cash and converting it to electronic float (e-money) on a user's mobile wallet, and vice versa, earning a micro-commission on each transaction ¹⁹.

The Velocity of Digital Capital

The scale of the transactions processed by this network definitively proves the bypass of the traditional banking tier. During the financial year ending March 2026, the M-Pesa ecosystem processed approximately 46.41 billion transactions ^5,6. The total value of these transactions grew to KSh 41.68 trillion (approximately $322 billion) ^5,6.

To conceptualize the sheer velocity of this system, Safaricom's network processes an average of 1,178 transactions every single second, effectively moving KSh 1.2 million per second throughout the country ¹⁹. This transaction volume stands in stark contrast to traditional electronic payments in the region. For context, in the 2023/2024 period, while M-Pesa handled 28 billion transactions, the total combined volume for all credit and debit card payments in Kenya was a mere 61 million ³. The average Kenyan now conducts over 500 mobile and real-time payments annually, a figure that significantly outpaces per capita digital payment rates in larger emerging markets like India or Brazil ³.

Deconstructing the "59% of GDP" Metric

A frequently cited statistic—often repeated by foreign diplomats, corporate executives, and international journalists—asserts that "59% of Kenya's GDP flows through M-Pesa" ^20,21,22,23. While this phrasing serves as powerful rhetorical evidence of M-Pesa's dominance, it requires precise economic clarification.

The total transaction value moving through M-Pesa (over KSh 41 trillion annually) mathematically equals a massive percentage, and in some years even a multiple, of Kenya's nominal GDP (which is estimated between KSh 13 trillion and KSh 15 trillion) ^22,24. However, gross transaction volume and Gross Domestic Product are asymmetric measurements. M-Pesa transactions largely represent the transfer of existing value—such as peer-to-peer remittances, shifting money from a bank account to a wallet, or paying a utility bill. GDP, conversely, measures the total value of new goods and services produced within an economy over a specific period ²².

Therefore, it is technically inaccurate to state that M-Pesa contributes 59% to the GDP. Rather, an amount of capital equivalent to that high percentage of the GDP flows across its rails. Safaricom's own sustainability reporting estimates that its operations contribute approximately KSh 809 billion to the Kenyan GDP, which translates to a highly impactful, yet more realistic, economic contribution of roughly 1.5% to 2% annually ^12,25,26. Regardless of the semantic debate surrounding the GDP metric, the underlying reality remains unchanged: traditional commercial banks in Kenya now view M-Pesa not as an alternative channel, but as the foundational financial infrastructure upon which the entire retail economy operates ¹⁹.

2. The Great Misconception: Fintech Story vs. Infrastructure Story

When analyzing why M-Pesa succeeded so spectacularly in Kenya while similar mobile money systems failed to create more than a ripple in other developing nations, a pervasive misconception clouds the historical narrative.

The Origin of the "Regulatory Sandbox" Myth

The most common misconception is that M-Pesa's success was fundamentally a triumph of visionary software design enabled by enlightened, permissive regulation ^10,27,28. This narrative originated largely from Western tech media and international development bodies, such as the World Bank, the UK’s Department for International Development (which provided the initial grant for the project), and various philanthropic foundations ^1,4,29,30.

According to this widely propagated story, the Central Bank of Kenya (CBK) boldly utilized a "test and learn" regulatory approach. The CBK faced immense pressure from traditional commercial banks, which demanded that this new mobile service be regulated strictly as a financial institution under the Banking Act ³¹. Instead, the regulator shielded the project, prioritizing financial inclusion over the protectionist interests of the banking sector. They allowed Safaricom to operate M-Pesa as a low-value payment platform outside the rigid confines of traditional banking law, provided that the actual customer funds were deposited in a regulated trust ^4,9,27,31.

This narrative suggests that other countries failed to replicate Kenya's success simply because their central banks were overly rigid, thereby suffocating fintech innovation in its crib.

The Reality: A Monopoly's Pre-Existing Infrastructure

While the CBK's regulatory forbearance was a necessary condition for M-Pesa's survival, it was entirely insufficient to explain its runaway success. The true secret to M-Pesa is that it is an infrastructure monopoly story masquerading as a fintech software story ³².

When Safaricom, backed by the global telecommunications giant Vodafone, commercially launched M-Pesa in March 2007, it already held a monopolistic grip on the Kenyan telecommunications market, with an estimated market share approaching 80% ^1,2,30. More importantly, Safaricom did not have to build a financial distribution network from scratch. It already possessed a sprawling, nationwide physical network of tens of thousands of airtime dealers ^2,3,4.

The technological innovation of using Unstructured Supplementary Service Data (USSD) menus to send SMS messages was highly replicable and arguably basic. The true genius of M-Pesa lay in the repurposing of existing physical infrastructure. Safaricom merely converted its established airtime sellers into cash-in/cash-out agents ³. The critical element of consumer trust was already established; Kenyans were already accustomed to giving these specific local agents cash in exchange for digital airtime PINs ⁴. In fact, prior to M-Pesa, a common informal remittance method involved buying physical airtime scratch cards in the city, texting the numerical code to a relative in a rural village, who would then sell the code to a local dealer at a slight discount for cash ⁴. M-Pesa simply formalized an organic, pre-existing behavior.

In countries where mobile money failed to gain similar traction, this unique combination of a dominant telecom monopoly and a ubiquitous, trusted retail network was conspicuously absent. In Nigeria, early mobile money deployments suffered because the initiative was bank-led rather than telecom-led, and multiple competing networks severely fragmented the market, preventing the establishment of a dense, unified agent network ^33,34. In South Africa, a highly developed traditional banking sector, combined with strict anti-money laundering regulations and a smaller number of intermediaries, stymied broad adoption ^18,34.

The Contrast: Closed Private Rails vs. Open Public Rails

The distinction between an infrastructure story and a fintech story becomes glaringly apparent when comparing Kenya's M-Pesa to India's Unified Payments Interface (UPI).

M-Pesa operates as a closed, proprietary infrastructure. Safaricom built the rails, owns the agent network, controls the pricing, and extracts a fee for peer-to-peer transfers and merchant payments ^7,35. Because it essentially acts as a privately owned toll road for the nation's economy, fintech startups attempting to build on top of M-Pesa face steep unit economics and high customer acquisition costs, as they are ultimately subordinate to the telecom's pricing power ³².

India’s UPI went the exact opposite route. Rather than allowing a private telecommunications company to monopolize the payment rails, the Indian government and central bank mandated the creation of a public, open-loop switching infrastructure ^7,35. UPI provides an open Application Programming Interface (API) that forces interoperability among hundreds of commercial banks and third-party fintech applications (like Google Pay, PhonePe, and Paytm) ³⁵. By mandating zero-cost transfers for individuals, UPI separated the profit motive from the foundational payment rails.

This public infrastructure approach allowed India to scale to over 350 million active users, drastically reducing the costs associated with physical currency printing and transaction friction, while fostering a hyper-competitive ecosystem of over 12,000 fintechs built on top of the free public rail ^7,35.

Other global successes further highlight that the M-Pesa model is not the only viable path to inclusion. In Bangladesh, bKash achieved massive scale (processing over 30 million daily transactions) by operating as an independent subsidiary of BRAC Bank. Crucially, bKash approached the market independently from any single mobile network provider, allowing users on any telecom network to access the platform, contrasting sharply with Safaricom's closed ecosystem ^36,37.

This comparative analysis demonstrates that while the world looked at M-Pesa as a fintech marvel, it was, in reality, a brilliant exercise in infrastructure monopolization.

3. The Dissenters: Financial Inclusion or Extractive Debt Trap?

For the first decade of its existence, the narrative surrounding M-Pesa was overwhelmingly positive. It was a staple of international development textbooks and a required case study in business schools. However, a growing and vocal faction of development economists, political economy scholars, and local market analysts now firmly disagrees with the premise that M-Pesa has been a universal force for economic empowerment.

The *Science* Paper Controversy

The flashpoint for this academic and economic dissent centers on a highly influential 2016 paper published in the prestigious journal Science by economists Tavneet Suri and William Jack. In this study, the authors made a sweeping and historically significant claim: access to the Kenyan mobile money system increased per capita consumption levels and directly lifted 194,000 households (representing 2% of all Kenyan households) out of extreme poverty between 2008 and 2014 ^8,39,40,41. According to the authors, this poverty reduction was primarily driven by enabling women to transition away from subsistence agriculture into more profitable micro-enterprises and small-scale trading ^39,41.

This specific "194,000 households" metric became the holy grail for digital financial inclusion advocates. It was cited continuously by the World Bank, the G20, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and countless fintech venture capitalists to justify the rapid, lightly regulated expansion of mobile money ecosystems across the Global South ^8,40,41,42.

However, the findings have been fiercely contested. Leading the charge are scholars Milford Bateman, Maren Duvendack, and Nicholas Loubere, who published a scathing critique in 2019, arguing that the Suri and Jack paper suffers from "serious errors, omissions, logical inconsistencies and flawed methodologies" ^40,41,42,43. Bateman and his colleagues argue that the original authors effectively birthed a false narrative that legitimizes an extractive fintech industry under the guise of poverty alleviation ^41,42.

The Best Argument Against M-Pesa: The Digitized Debt Trap

The dissenters' most compelling argument is that M-Pesa is no longer primarily a tool for financial inclusion; rather, it has devolved into "microfinance on steroids" ⁷. While the platform excels at moving money efficiently, its most aggressive growth and profit generation in recent years have come from digital lending.

Critics highlight three structural flaws that undermine the M-Pesa "miracle":

1. Predatory Interest Rates and the Credit Cycle While standard peer-to-peer transfers still account for a substantial portion of M-Pesa's KSh 182.7 billion in service revenue, microloans are growing at an alarming 27% compound annual growth rate ^7,44. Products like Fuliza (an automated, algorithm-driven overdraft facility introduced in 2019) and M-Shwari (a savings and micro-loan product) have ensnared millions of low-income users in perpetual cycles of debt ^7,20,45.

Fuliza, which is used by approximately 76% of active M-Pesa customers, provides instant, pre-approved limits to complete transactions when a wallet has insufficient funds ^7,21. While convenient, it charges an average of 7.5% monthly interest on average balances. When annualized, this translates to an effective rate of 132% ⁷. The sheer volume of this lending is staggering: during the first half of the 2025 financial year, Safaricom enabled customers to access KSh 629.2 billion via Fuliza overdrafts alone, with the average ticket size remaining incredibly small (often under $2) ^21,46. By comparison, Brazil's state-led Pix system integrates with public banking to offer microloans at a 14% Annual Percentage Rate (APR), demonstrating that state-led digital finance can achieve inclusion without facilitating debt traps ⁷.

Furthermore, analysts point to a distinct lack of sophisticated credit modeling. Sitoyo Lopokoiyit, head of M-Pesa Africa, has stated that the platform utilizes over 3,500 data features to make credit decisions ⁴⁷. Yet, critics observe that M-Pesa historically charges uniform, flat fees regardless of a borrower's risk profile or repayment history. If interest rates do not decrease over time for reliable borrowers, it indicates that the pricing model is designed for pure profit maximization rather than accurate risk assessment—a hallmark of predatory lending ⁴⁷.

2. The Illusion of the Micro-Enterprise The foundational premise of the Science paper was that M-Pesa lifted women out of poverty by financing the creation of micro-enterprises ^8,41. Bateman counters that this reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of development economics. In marginalized, low-income communities, local aggregate demand is highly inelastic and weak ⁸.

Funding thousands of identical, hyper-local micro-enterprises (such as informal retail kiosks or street trading stalls) does not create new wealth; it simply hyper-saturates the local market. These tiny businesses end up stealing marginal market share from one another in an environment of hyper-competition, leading to massive failure rates. According to the Kenya National Bureau of Statistics, nearly 46% of new enterprises shutter within a year of opening ⁸. Consequently, borrowers are left saddled with high-interest digital debt, having lost their initial capital investment. Data suggests this phenomenon has actively stalled the growth of formal enterprise creation in Kenya, which remains stagnant at 2.1% annual growth, compared to 5.8% in the pre-M-Pesa era ⁷.

3. Extractive Capitalism and Fiscal Parasitism Finally, critics argue that M-Pesa functions as a highly efficient mechanism of capital extraction. Safaricom is an immensely profitable corporate entity. The fees extracted from the daily transactions of the poorest citizens are funneled upward as strong dividends to corporate shareholders—namely the Kenyan government (which owns a 35% stake) and foreign telecommunications giants (Vodacom and Vodafone) ^43,48.

The state plays a paradoxical role as both a partner and a parasite in this ecosystem. The Kenyan government, facing severe fiscal shortfalls, leverages the ubiquity of M-Pesa by imposing a 3% excise duty on transactions ⁷. This tax disproportionately impacts low-income users, generating hundreds of millions of dollars annually for public coffers. In essence, the government has weaponized financial inclusion to ensure fiscal stability, taxing the very infrastructure the poor rely on to survive ⁷.

Ultimately, the dissenters argue that while M-Pesa successfully provided a superior digital payment rail that bypassed failing banks, the subsequent injection of profit-driven, unregulated fintech lending has "dumbed down" the Kenyan economy, trapping vulnerable populations in high-frequency debt cycles ^7,49.

4. What Changed Recently: The Inflection Point for the M-Pesa Empire

For the better part of two decades, M-Pesa has been a remarkably stable success story, growing predictably year over year. However, a confluence of macroeconomic shocks, regulatory pressures, and corporate restructuring in 2025 and 2026 has thrust the platform into a period of unprecedented volatility. M-Pesa is currently facing an inflection point that warrants intense global scrutiny.

The May 2025 Transaction Slump and Fee Fatigue

The most immediate red flag emerged in May 2025, when Kenya's mobile money sector experienced a sudden and severe contraction in usage. Data released by the Kenya National Bureau of Statistics revealed that transaction volumes plummeted to their lowest levels since October 2024. Only 214.5 million transactions were recorded during the month, representing a steep 29.2% drop from April's 303.1 million transactions ¹³. Correspondingly, active mobile money subscriptions saw a rare decline, falling from 86 million to 85.6 million ¹³.

A critical divergence occurred in the data: while the volume of transactions fell drastically, the overall value of transactions actually rose slightly, from KSh 699 billion in April to KSh 713 billion in May ¹³.

Market analysts point to severe macroeconomic strain and mounting fee fatigue as the primary drivers of this slump. With the Kenyan economy grappling with high costs of living and squeezed household budgets, consumers are altering their behavior. To avoid the cumulative burden of transaction fees on multiple small, low-value transfers, Kenyans are consolidating their payments into fewer, higher-value transactions ¹³. Furthermore, Safaricom's ironclad grip on the market showed signs of slipping; its market share dipped to 90.8% in Q1 2025, as rival Airtel Money aggressively expanded its agent network and utilized predatory pricing to capture a 9.1% share ¹³. This erosion indicates that the vaunted network effect of M-Pesa is not entirely immune to economic pressure and consumer exhaustion over fees.

The Push for Corporate Unbundling

Perhaps the most consequential development is the Kenyan government's active exploration of a plan to forcibly split Safaricom into three separate, standalone businesses: a traditional telecommunications provider (voice and data), a physical tower operator, and an independent M-Pesa financial technology firm ^48,50,51.

Treasury Secretary John Mbadi publicly confirmed in August 2025 that official assessments identified a "huge benefit" in this separation ^50,51. The motivations driving this proposed unbundling are twofold:

1. Regulatory Oversight: Lawmakers and traditional commercial banks have long lobbied against Safaricom’s concentrated power. By carving M-Pesa out of the telecommunications umbrella, it would operate as a standalone financial services company subject to the direct, stringent supervision of the Central Bank of Kenya, leveling the playing field for traditional banks ^48,51.
2. Value Maximization and State Divestment: The Kenyan government faces acute fiscal deficits and aims to raise KSh 149 billion (roughly $1.16 billion) by offloading stakes in state-linked enterprises ⁵⁰. Financial analysts argue that a structural carve-out would unlock significant "hidden value." By isolating M-Pesa, global markets could value it purely as a high-growth fintech entity, unencumbered by the capital-intensive, slower-growth realities of the physical telco business ⁵⁰.

Safaricom’s executive leadership, including CEO Peter Ndegwa, has historically fought against the split, arguing that their future relies on converged "Super App" solutions that deeply integrate telecom data with mobile money services ^44,48,52. However, the internal data makes the government's case compelling: M-Pesa is cannibalizing the core business. In the financial year ending March 2010, M-Pesa contributed just 9.0% of Safaricom's service revenue. By the end of the 2026 financial year, M-Pesa's contribution had surged to 45.59% (KSh 182.73 billion), rapidly closing in on the traditional connectivity business (voice and data), which stood at 49.4% ^44,52.

Changing Ownership and Border Expansion

Simultaneous with the unbundling threats, Safaricom's fundamental ownership structure is shifting. South Africa's Vodacom Group is in the process of finalizing a complex acquisition to increase its stake in Safaricom by 20%. By purchasing a 15% stake from the Kenyan Government and a 5% stake from Vodafone (for a total cash consideration of $2.4 billion), Vodacom will assume a 55% controlling majority by early 2026 ⁴⁸. This transaction effectively transfers ultimate control of Kenya's primary financial infrastructure to a foreign entity, validating the dissenters' concerns regarding the transnational extraction of local capital ^43,48.

Finally, the M-Pesa model is aggressively evolving both geographically and structurally. After years of struggling to replicate its Kenyan success abroad, M-Pesa has found explosive growth in Ethiopia. Following the liberalization of the Ethiopian telecom market and M-Pesa's integration with the national payments switch (EthSwitch) in late 2025, the platform surged to 5.2 million active users, representing a 258.5% year-on-year increase in that market ^53,54,55.

Domestically, M-Pesa is pushing far beyond simple payments and micro-loans into sophisticated wealth management. In early 2026, Safaricom partnered with the Nairobi Securities Exchange to launch the Ziidi Trader platform, allowing users to buy and sell equities directly via the M-Pesa app. Concurrently, the Ziidi Money Market Fund amassed 2.42 million active investors and nearly KSh 19.8 billion in assets under management ^5,6. This proves that M-Pesa is successfully migrating its massive, formerly unbanked user base into the realm of complex capital markets, fundamentally altering the nature of digital finance in East Africa.

Conclusion

The evolution of M-Pesa is not a simple, linear fairy tale of technological disruption and poverty alleviation. It is a masterclass in the monopolization of physical infrastructure to solve a digital liquidity problem. Kenya skipped the slow, capital-intensive rollout of traditional commercial banking not because it possessed a superior software application, but because a dominant telecommunications company weaponized a pre-existing network of tens of thousands of airtime dealers.

While global development narratives continuously credit enlightened regulatory sandboxes for this success, the empirical reality points to the raw power of market share and physical distribution. As M-Pesa matured, its core business model shifted. It transitioned from a highly efficient public utility facilitating peer-to-peer transfers into an aggressive, automated digital lender. This pivot has triggered valid, data-backed academic criticism suggesting that the platform may now be exacerbating poverty through high-interest overdraft traps and the forced proliferation of unsustainable micro-enterprises.

Today, M-Pesa stands at a precarious crossroads. Facing a sudden slump in high-frequency transaction volumes due to macroeconomic strain, looming threats of corporate unbundling by a cash-strapped government, and a transition to foreign majority control, the platform is entering an era of deep uncertainty. Its legacy as the unrivaled engine of Kenya's parallel digital economy is secure. However, whether its future structural model continues to serve as an inclusive public good or solidifies into a purely extractive, privatized toll road remains the most critical question in emerging market finance.

Sources:

1. cornell.edu
2. Link
3. cashpaymentnews.com
4. medium.com
5. kenyanews.go.ke
6. connectingafrica.com
7. fintechassociation.africa
8. developingeconomics.org
9. medium.com
10. ox.ac.uk
11. bairdscmc.com
12. risevest.com
13. businessfront.com
14. paymentscmi.com
15. businessfront.com
16. fintechmagazine.com
17. dawan.africa
18. researchgate.net
19. facebook.com
20. forbes.com
21. wbs.ac.uk
22. africacheck.org
23. bakermckenzie.com
24. the-star.co.ke
25. riamoneytransfer.com
26. safaricom.co.ke
27. scribd.com
28. stanford.edu
29. substack.com
30. worldbank.org
31. johanschot.com
32. facebook.com
33. Link
34. wordpress.com
35. thecasesolutions.com
36. novatti.com
37. alternativepaymentmethods.com
38. globalscholars.uz
39. theawarenessnews.com
40. repec.org
41. wikipedia.org
42. researchgate.net
43. rapidtransition.org
44. telcotitans.com
45. orfonline.org
46. techafricanews.com
47. medium.com
48. weetracker.com
49. lse.ac.uk
50. techmoran.com
51. techpoint.africa
52. thekenyatimes.com
53. digitaleconomymag.com
54. techafricanews.com
55. safaricom.et