**2.1 Actor-network theory**

The boundaries between the technical and the social, between human and nonhuman (machine), are frequently contested and negotiated. ANT is concerned with the interaction between the social and the technical, and the creation and maintenance of stable coextensive networks of humans and non-humans [18]. In the case of digital technologies, this includes people, organisations, software, computers and communications hardware and infrastructure standards.

ANT symmetrically treats the social and the technical as inseparable, arguing that humans and artefacts should be analysed with the same conceptual apparatus. Latour [19] illustrates the rationale for the symmetric treatment by identifying that it is no longer clear if digital technologies are a limited form of an organisation or if the organisation is an expanded form of digital technology [11]. ANT is often described as a systematic approach exploring the infrastructure that supports the 'scientific and technological achievements' within a network, making it a more profound approach to researching and understanding service networks [20]. ANT is, therefore, a useful theoretical lens for understanding socio-political phenomena, especially where digital technology plays a critical role. One of the most distinctive ANT features is that actors

*Perspective Chapter: Actor-Network Theory as an Organising Structure for Blockchain Adoption… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.106751*

can also be non-human – a text, a machine, an institution. It values the interaction between humans themselves or between human and non-human actors [21].

ANT provides added explanatory power over existing socio-technical theories that are either deterministic such as structuration theory and diffusion of innovations, or are theoretically too narrow such as the social construction of technology theory. ANT does not exclude a priori non-human actors from the analysis, allowing for a more explicit examination of the enabling or the restricting role of digital technology in a socio-technical process; second, ANT does not distinguish a priori between micro (e.g., individuals) and macro actors (e.g., organisations), but acknowledges the inherently unstable nature of actors [22–24]. This allows for a flexible consideration of a socio-technical collective as a single actor or as a group of individual actors, depending on the level of analysis desirable [25].


#### **Table 1.**

*Actor-network theory terms and descriptions.*

The most important ANTs characteristic is providing an analytical lens to understand the socio-technical components of hybrid contexts [26]. An essential ontology of ANT when executed is to track and clarify the translation moments by which networks of aligned interests are formed and preserved, or to inspect why those networks are unable to be created [24, 27]. Successful networks are established through the enrolment of a set of allies that successfully translate its interests, therefore, becoming well prepared to participate in specific methods of thinking and acting, in order to preserve the network [11]. Specifically, ANT supports the goal of this study because of the following network features [28]: ANT networking, which means the strength of the involved actors in the networks over communities and individuals who are not part of these networks; the second feature is ANT network, which is the strength of the standards needed to control the network social interaction through the imposition of the inclusion laws; the third feature is ANT networked, that is the strength of some social actors over other social actors in the network; and finally ANT network making, the strength to program alliance networks based on the dominant actors' interests and values [28]. **Table 1** illustrates ANT terminology and concepts.

#### **2.2 Blockchain technology**

BT revolves around the smart networks theory [29] in which value is replicated in a network using a sophisticated protocol that validates, confirms and controls transactions through the network. These protocols offer a peer-to-peer transfer of value using algorithmic trust compared with the classical typology of trust between human agents [30–32].

Blockchain is an append-only database technology because the moment the data is stored in the database, it cannot be changed or deleted [33], since the blocks are added in chronological order using timestamps and hashes to form an incorruptible chain. This chain is shared and distributed to all the participating entities [34, 35] in instances where blockchain transactions are public. Due to this transparent behaviour, security features were introduced by categorising blockchains as either public or private blockchains [34, 36, 37].

Public blockchains (permissionless), where the actors are anonymous, have more security challenges as each blockchain is able to be part or quit at any time [38]. On the other hand, private blockchains (permissioned) are predefined groups of specific actors who are authorised, authenticated and allowed to be part of the blockchain network in order to decrease the existence of malicious actors inside the network [31, 33, 39]

An essential part of blockchain development is its distributed intermediary governance where no single entity has full control, but a consensus between the different groups has to be reached using consensus algorithms [35]. Consequently, blockchainbased services are not maintained by a central authority, but by a community of miners and developers [24]. Miners are powerful and important actors in the network since the continuation of the blockchain depends on them. They collectively validate and bundle batches of transactions into blocks and add them into a chronological chain through a 'consensus' process that uses multiple consensus algorithms depending on the types and applications [40]. Consensus is used to ensure enhanced security and privacy for various applications in many domains using different mechanisms such as proof-of-work (PoW), which is a mathematical challenge that ensures the security of peer-to-peer transfer by maintaining a digital ledger of transactions that is considered to be unalterable [38]. As a consequence, a novel approach of 'algorithmic trust' is established, which is completely different from the classic typology of trust in human actors [32].

*Perspective Chapter: Actor-Network Theory as an Organising Structure for Blockchain Adoption… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.106751*

BT uses cryptography to provide the security, immutability and rightful ownership of the transactions being stored on the block using the hash function [40]. Further, cryptography helps the receiver to verify the authenticity and integrity of the transactions on the network [31]. It uses a changeable public key (PK) to record the users' identity that provides an extra layer of privacy [41].

The process of safe transfer of value is undertaken using smart contracts, which can simplify the process by automating verified transactions [42]. Smart contracts are computer programs that run automatically when certain criteria are met within the system, which are used to transfer value of any kind between the peers in a blockchain without the service of a trusted third party [31].

The next section presents an example of blockchain in the land registration context that was technically superior yet excluded critical social processes and therefore failed.

#### **2.3 Bitland case in Ghana**

Bitland Ghana is a sophisticated permissionless open blockchain model implemented for informal land ownership in Ghana using the open-ledger platform [43–45]. A proof-of-stake was used as the consensus mechanism utilising cadastraltokens formerly issued by the Danish Cryptocurrency Exchange (CCEDK). It also used GPS and open-map API to map lands [46–48]. Rather than save the identity data on the block, Bitland uses a unique value to link the title to the owner [46, 49–51].

Bitland focused on the customary and local authorities outside the major cities to establish a land ledger for farmers and local communities [45, 52] without any official government institutions [45, 50]. The exclusion of the official land registration authority in government meant that Bitland was not accepted beyond the local community [52] because customary courts do not have any legislative power. This example illustrates the challenge of focusing on BT's technological supremacy at the expense of important wider social and network processes.
