Today’s post continues the debate from the Extreme Inclusion conference at the Fletcher School at Tufts University. The proposition, as you will recall: “Financial inclusion means formal inclusion.” Yesterday, we heard from the Pro side of the argument (represented by green high heels), and today we hear from the Con side (pink flip flops). The Con team is represented here by Jenny C. Aker on behalf of herself and teammates Ignacio Mas and Daryl Collins.

What we have heard from the opposing team is that financial inclusion – real financial inclusion – means “formal” financial inclusion. We heard that in order to get out of the poverty trap, poor individuals want – and need – financial services that build financial security, manage risks against shocks, and invest in new business opportunities. In other words, things that the informal sector can’t fully provide.

But is formal always better? Formal services are often laden with fees (how many of you know the APR on your credit card?), unfamiliar, or simply unsafe. The 1999 banking crisis in Uganda depleted smallholder savings. It was a formal system. The collapse of the Russian banking system defrauded depositors. This, too, was a formal system. And as the financial sector has become wider and deeper in many countries, the effects of such volatility — boom one day, bust the next — are felt by more people, including the poor.

Even without these formal sector collapses, the poor must often choose between high-priced formal financial services or none at all. We often criticize the moneylenders for being usurers. But what about Banco Compartamos, which has interest rates well above 70 percent and still doesn’t offer savings services? Is that fair? Or the compulsory two savings account system of the Grameen Bank, each with separate rules? Is that useful?

Financial inclusion, broadly defined, is the ability of an individual, household, or group to access appropriate financial services or products. Informal services – from friends and family members, ROSCAs, tontines, susu collectors, and yes, even moneylenders – provide those services. Services that may not be regulated, but are useful, fair, dignified, and familiar. They have helped millions of people borrow, save, insure, and invest, all on their own terms. These systems have survived and thrived for centuries in the face of inflation, financial collapse, coups d’etat, earthquakes, and floods. Why would we not encourage people to manage their existing networks better, rather than encourage them to no longer use that network?

It is with these arguments that we ask you all to reject the proposition that financial inclusion means formal financial inclusion. Like our enthusiasm for microfinance as the “next big thing”— for which, by the way, we have little rigorous evidence of its impact on the world’s poor — a focus on formal financial inclusion will encourage the poor to use formal financial products that are not useful, fair, or familiar, potentially at the expense of their existing social networks. Do we have something to gain? Possibly, but the jury is still out. Do the poor have something to lose? Absolutely. We should not be willing to take that risk.

Jenny C. Aker is an Assistant Professor of Economics at The Fletcher School and the Department of Economics at Tufts University. She is also a Non-Resident Fellow at the Center for Global Development and a member of the Advisory Board for Frontline SMS.

After working for Catholic Relief Services as Deputy Regional Director in West and Central Africa between 1998 and 2003, Jenny returned to complete her PhD in agricultural economics at the University of California-Berkeley. Jenny works on economic development in Africa, with a primary focus on the impact of information and information technology on development outcomes, particularly in the areas of agriculture, agricultural marketing, and education; the relationship between shocks and agricultural food market performance; the determinants of agricultural technology adoption; and impact evaluations of NGO and World Bank projects.

Image credits: The Fletcher School

Have you read?

Scaling Up Formal Savings: Lessons from the SEEP Annual Conference

In Defense of Formal Financial Services: Moving Beyond the Parking Lot and Onto the Highway

Promoting Formal Financial Savings: Know Your Goal, Know Your Competition

Kim Wilson, of the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, is a consummate educator who knows that drama leads to learning. That’s why she staged a competitive debate to kick off her Extreme Inclusion conference.

The Proposition: Financial inclusion means formal inclusion.

On the Pro side were myself and my esteemed colleagues Marguerite Robinson, emerita extraordinaire, Lauren Hendricks, of Care’s Access Africa conference, with coaching from Ahmed Dermish of Bankable Frontier Associates.

Taking the Con side were Ahmed’s colleague from BFA, Daryl Collins, together with Ignacio Mas, unaffiliated innovative thinker, and Jenny Aker of Fletcher, coached by Nick Sullivan, author of Money Real Quick: The Story of M-PESA.

Peter Walker of Tufts wielded the gavel with wit and a tiny hint of malice. He symbolized the Pro side with a green spike heeled shoe, and the Con side with a pink flip flop.

Unaccustomed as I am to public speaking, I took up the last position on the Pro side, with three minutes to make my points. Here’s what I said:

1. Development is about building societies that offer opportunity and connection to everyone. The important word is building. Let’s look where we are going. While many low income people today use and possibly even prefer informal financial services, one cannot consider this the path to the future. If we want to see the bottom 20 percent of the population become economically successful, there must be a path to success. We need only look to the accomplishments of microfinance in bringing microcredit to hundreds of millions in the past two decades to be confident about the prospects for major change in the future.

2. Formal financial services have the power to do what financial services are designed to do at a level that accomplishes more for the people who use them: they pool and diversify more risks; bridge longer distances and time spans. Now, with technology helping, they can do this faster, safer, cheaper, and more conveniently. And for millions of people. As more people have higher incomes, they will need the extended capabilities of formal services. Informal services might be good for meeting small emergencies, but formal services will be needed for building a business, buying a home, or preparing for old age.

3. Informal services have their place as precursors, for those who cannot be reached formally, and they will continue to be used throughout a person’s transition from informal to formal. But ultimately, informal services will become marginal or supplemental. How many of us here today would want to turn back the clock in our own lives and revert only to informal services? (The room grew deathly still and not a hand was raised.)

4. Many of us are tempted to portray the best of informal (so friendly and social) versus the worst of formal. The best qualities of informal services stand as a challenge to formal providers – a bar providers must clear if people are going to use their services. On the other hand, informal services can be harsh and harmful, and people may choose formal services to avoid some of these problems. But in truth, all financial services have light and dark sides. That’s why it’s the duty of everyone working in financial inclusion to bring the power of formal services to people in a safe, prudent, and respectful manner.

5. The hundreds of millions of people around the world, many of whom are seeing their incomes rise and seeking formal services, deserve the chance to benefit from what such services can offer. We are here at a school dedicated to training development professionals who want to work for a better world. If we don’t work for formal financial inclusion, we are relegating today’s financially excluded to stay off the path of development and remain marginal members of their societies forever. (Applause.)

I’m sure after reading these remarks, you will cast your vote with the green high heel team.

Unfortunately, the audience went with pink flip flops.

Stay tuned and we will bring you the words from the winning side.

Image credits: The Fletcher School

Have you read?

In Defense of Formal Financial Services: Moving Beyond the Parking Lot and Onto the Highway

A Holistic Approach to Money Management

Promoting Formal Financial Savings: Know Your Goal, Know Your Competition

The Financial Inclusion 2020 campaign at the Center for Financial Inclusion at Accion is building a movement toward full financial inclusion by 2020. Accordingly, this blog series will spotlight financial inclusion efforts around the globe, share insights coming out of the creation of a roadmap to full financial inclusion, and highlight findings from research on the “invisible market.”

Recently, as part of the Extreme Inclusion Conference at the Fletcher School at Tufts University, I watched a debate between industry leaders on whether financial inclusion means formal financial inclusion. It was a debate that had me slightly uncomfortable. To impose such a rigid definition of financial inclusion seemed cruel, given that there are informal products in existence that meet many financial needs. On the other hand, I myself have seen the superiority of well-designed formal financial products in better addressing the financial needs of people living in poverty.

There was one exchange during the debate that clarified the issue for me. In defense of informal financial services, Daryl Collins waved a $10 bill in the air and thanked a Tufts PhD student for lending her the money to pay her parking fee the day before. She remarked that without this informal financial service (a short-term, no-interest loan), she would have had to find an ATM—an inconvenience when she just wanted to leave the parking lot.

While the example was effective in showing the audience that they use informal financial services every day, there were a few things that do not allow us to generalize it to those who operate largely in the informal sector. First, it isn’t dependable. While convenient, the exchange relied on the fact that this was a one-time occurrence with a great deal of trust between the two parties. If Daryl were to ask to borrow $10 every day from this PhD student, the student would likely start to say no, or would charge some kind of a fee (I know that if I were a PhD student regularly lending money to Daryl Collins, I might ask what kinds of jobs she has open in her Financial Diaries work!). Second, it is a relatively small amount of money by U.S. standards—it isn’t an exchange that is scalable. $10 might buy lunch here in the U.S. or lattes for two. Finally, and most importantly, it ignores the possibilities of technological or environmental change. If, for example, Daryl could have paid with her credit card rather than with cash, she most likely would have chosen her credit card and not have consulted the kind student. I personally operate cashless whenever possible.

Beth had a clever response to Daryl that provoked more than a few chuckles from the audience: “Daryl herself proves that informal financial inclusion’s only role is to get us out of the parking lot.” Beth was exaggerating for effect, of course. But she nicely turned the parking lot example into a metaphor. Beth’s reframing of the argument offers that there is a role for informal financial services – it is just one that becomes less and less central if formal services are available.

In a perfect world, our formal financial services and the environment around us would be ideally suited to our financial needs. Every person who used formal financial services would be treated with dignity, and their rights would be respected.

Unfortunately, we do not live in a perfect world.

We do need informal financial services to get us out of our own financial parking lots so that we can increase our speed and efficiency in managing our money, saving for the future, and insuring against risk. Informal financial services play a very important part in the financial inclusion game, but it isn’t our ultimate goal—it’s just part of the journey.

A big thanks to Kim Wilson for putting together such an engaging debate—I came away grateful for having been able to listen to the conversation. For more on this topic, stay tuned to this space as we’ll be sharing a post from Beth Rhyne that summarizes her own argument in support of the proposition that financial inclusion means formal inclusion.

And in case you were wondering, I voted for the pro-formal team.

For more information on Financial Inclusion 2020, sign up for campaign updates.

Have you read?

Scaling Up Formal Savings: Lessons from the SEEP Annual Conference

Promoting Formal Financial Savings: Know Your Goal, Know Your Competition

A Holistic Approach to Money Management