Literature review on integral, mixed, and creative research approaches for complementary currency impact evaluation

According to the integrative review of all 194 articles published in the International Journal of Community Currency Research from 1997 to 2022, two-third (66.0%) were dealing with currency impact assessment—compared to one-sixth (17.9%) for 4 other literature reviews since impact’s definition influences its outcome—of which two-fifth (38.3%) had a positive impact but five-ninth (55.5%) had a neutral impact for a positive/negative impact ratio of 6.1. On average, the existing currencies studied represented a multiplier effect or velocity of 12.1, 7.33% of a targeted population, and 3.01% of a monetary mass or gross domestic product—and only one-fourth (23.6%) became inactive after 7 years. As suspected, seven-eighth (87.6%) investigated currencies with sustainable development objectives—involving 2.87 of the 5 pillars of sustainable development and targeting 5.26 of the 17 Sustainable Development Goals. Coming from 19 different disciplines, authors used 3.66 methodologies in average—among 79 different methodologies including the usual systems theory and econometrics—but four-fifth (78.4%) unexpectedly used multi-methodological frameworks (Integral Methodological Pluralism, ‘mixed methods’ research, ‘creative research’ methods) whereas only two-fifth(39.2%) used meta-theoretical paradigms (Complex Thought, Integral Theory, Critical Realism). Therefore, meta-theoretical paradigms with multi-methodological frameworks for the study of money or currency as a complex phenomenon are recommended.