In this edition of the faiVLive, the Financial Access Initiative’s Tim Ogden and Jesse McWaters, the Global Head of Regulatory Advocacy at Mastercard, explored basic frameworks for understanding the differences between the rapidly growing types of digital currencies. They covered new and evolving digital means of exchange, how they interact, and what that means for pro-poor financial inclusion.
Read MoreViewing all posts with tag: Digital
When is FinTech Pro-Poor?
In this edition of the faiVLive, with a group of expert panelists from around the world, we delve into the possibilities for FinTech to serve the poor and reduce inequality. Six years after McKinsey heralded “a new era of digital globalization,” what have we learned about when, and where, FinTech meaningfully advances inclusion, and when it creates a new (digital) divide? When does FinTech (in the words of Greg Chen of CGAP, during this edition of the faiVLive) build a bridge and when does it dig a moat?
Read MoreServicios Financieros Digitales y la inclusión financiera en América Latina
La pandemia ha elevado el perfil de los Servicios Financieros Digitales (SFD), los cuales han permitido una distribución sorprendentemente rápida de los fondos de apoyo social, ofreciendo un camino para brindar servicios financieros de forma segura y a escala. Sin embargo, aún quedan asuntos importantes que considerar en cuanto al despliegue e impacto final de los SFD. ¿Quiénes están siendo excluidos? ¿Cómo podemos asegurarnos de que los nuevos actores y modelos empresariales incorporen las necesidades de las comunidades y los clientes de escasos recursos? Esta edición de faiVLive reúne a profesionales e investigadores expertos para abordar estas preguntas y debatir el camino a seguir para los SFD y la inclusión financiera en América Latina.
Con la participación de: Xavier Faz, Líder de Modelos Empresariales y Líder Regional de CGAP en América Latina y el Caribe, Barbara Magnoni, Presidente de EA Consultants y Co-fundadora de MeXCo Soluciones, Timothy Ogden, Director General de la Iniciativa de Acceso Financiero de NYU, Kiki Del Valle, Vicepresidente Sénior de Alianzas Digitales de Mastercard.
Moderador: Gabriela Zapata, Consultora de Inclusión Financiera y Salud Financiera.
Week of January 31, 2020
1. Financial Inclusion/Household Financial Security: It seems strange that I so infrequently have items specifically on microfinance so I leap at the chance when it comes along, particularly when that chance involves one of my soapboxes. For instance: the product is what the users make of it, not what the institution wants it to be. For instance, most microcredit loans aren't investment loans, they're liquidity management tools. Which, of course, makes sense since liquidity management is a more pressing need and the structure of the basic microcredit loan is so ill-suited to business investment. But there are ways to make the standard microcredit loan structure more workable for investment purposes. For instance, borrowers from the largest MFI in China form bogus groups and then funnel all of the loans to a single member to make a larger investment. It's not a niche phenomena either: the authors estimate that 73% of groups are doing this.
Another of my soapboxes is the history of development of financial institutions that serve excluded populations, and where the modern microfinance movement fits in that history. There's a new paper from Marvin Suesse and Nikolaus Wolf on the development rural credit cooperatives in Prussia between 1852 and 1913 (I did say this was a pet interest). And here's a summary version in VoxEU. If that doesn't sound like the kind of thing you would normally click on, I beg you to reconsider. It's an interesting story about what drove the creation of a new kind of financial services institution in a setting that makes it a bit easier to disentangle causes and effects, and what effect these new institutions had on their communities. I won't spoil the ending but would encourage you to think about how their results would look if measured with an individual-focused impact evaluation.
I will spoil the beginning, though: the formation of credit cooperatives was driven by changes in the economy that increased the need for access to credit. Which brings me to a third soapbox, the Great Convergence (and there's more on that below). Here's a new report from the New York Fed on constrained access to credit in the United States, including a "Credit Insecurity Index." The premise is that access to credit is important for households to manage liquidity, manage investment and manage risk (those are my terms, theirs are "manage emergencies, take advantage of opportunities, or invest"), but that access varies geographically for lots of different reasons. The report tracks 5 tiers of credit access and changes in those tiers over time, by county. There are 11 states where more than 10% of the population lives in credit-insecure counties. It's another way to illustrate how much in common parts of the US, geographically and demographically, have in common with middle-income countries. Speaking of, I'd love to see a similar exercise done in other countries.
Finally, and keeping with the Great Convergence sub-theme, here's a new paper from Jonathan Fu looking at representative data from six "emerging economies" and five "developed economies" to look at "contextual-level" predictors of financial well-being. He finds that more sources of independent information, more competition, and specifically more competition from informal and semi-formal providers helps, and that simple access and financial literacy don't (hey, another soapbox!).
2. Digital Finance: Writing about digital finance is frequently tough because the line between what is "finance" and what is "digital finance" isn't all that clear much of the time. Thirty years ago most credit card transactions were digital (the information was passed over phone lines from modem-to-modem!) but we don't tend to think of that as "digital finance." Another of my soapboxes is that often the "digital" in "digital finance" is used as a justification to pretend the rules of finance don't apply. Here's a useful review in an unusual outlet (Computer) on the "technical potential versus practical reality" of digital finance, specifically blockchain and crypto, for low-income people. It cites some examples I was unaware of and presents the arguments for the benefits pretty clearly. But the best reason to read it is the Challenges section features a heading you almost never see from pieces that emerge from the digital side of digital finance: "Low-income groups' limited power and financial/social capital." Another thing I really like is it draws a distinction between FinTechs and TechFins, the latter being tech firms dabbling in finance.
The Economist has a piece this week on that issue specifically: "how digital financial services can prey upon the poor" with a specific focus on the potential for abuse of data gathered on poor customers who have little understanding of what is being gathered by whom or the consequences (to be fair, none of us do). To the point about the blurred line between finance and digital finance, there's not much there that hasn't been true of non-digital finance for a very long time.
The Economist piece relies heavily on CGAPs long-standing attention to these issues, and Matthew Soursourian and Ariadne Plaitakis have more to add in a look at how digital finance may require changes to competition policy in financial services, specifically as TechFins play a larger role. Oh look, they specifically call out issues of political power!
In their case it's the political power that the market power of TechFins brings, but it's not just the political power of corporations that becomes worrisome in digital finance. The political power of governments is even more concerning to the extent that it enables even more channels for surveillance, oppression and exclusion. Here's a story about Kenya's digital ID initiative that is excluding many marginalized groups from getting the IDs that will soon be necessary for many aspects of life including access to the financial system. But even those people who are included may end up excluded because the government lacks the tools and expertise to protect the very sensitive data that goes into the biometric IDs.
