You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘Financial Inclusion’ tag.
> Posted by Joanna Ledgerwood, Senior Advisor, Access to Finance, Aga Khan Foundation
The following post was originally published in the Guardian Development Professionals Network DAI Partner Zone.
The microfinance industry has come under withering attack in recent years, pilloried among other things for its high interest rates and its coverage, which is often estimated to reach less than 10 percent of the population. But practitioners, the media, and the public should understand that microfinance is a broad term for a highly differentiated financial sector that is not without its successes. Each type of provider — from banks to savings groups — plays a particular role in providing the continuum of services typically needed to promote “financial inclusion” in underserved areas.
My recently published book, The New Microfinance Handbook: A Financial Market System Perspective, addresses the need to broaden microfinance’s reach to meet the diverse financial service needs of clients. For financial inclusion to increase, each type of institution must be deployed in the contexts in which it works best. Together, funders and governments must take a holistic, context-driven approach to improving financial services in poor areas — referred to as the market systems approach. While the commercialization of microfinance has had its successes, we need to consider the entire system, especially community-based providers, if we are to reach the rural poor with appropriate financial services.
The Mountain Societies Development Support Programme (MSDSP), an NGO set up and supported by the Aga Khan Foundation in Tajikistan, is a good example of a market systems approach where a variety of financial initiatives work collaboratively. Launched as a relief and humanitarian initiative, MSDSP transitioned to become a development organization, promoting good governance and local economic development. Recognizing that the legacy of distrust in the formal financial sector has been particularly damaging to people living in mountainous areas — already subject to isolation, marginalization, and deep poverty — MSDSP aims to address the lack of accessible financial services.
In the remote rural areas where MSDSP works, community-based savings groups (CBSGs) are at the heart of a successful effort to bring financial services to the poor, supported by a broad spectrum of financial and social institutions. Based on tested models in Africa and South Asia, CBSGs are simple savings and borrowing associations. Under the direction of elected leaders, groups of 15 to 25 members gather biweekly to manage their financial activities. After two months of training followed by approximately seven months of close supervision, CBSGs continue to operate, without external support, for many years. Members access loans and pay interest of about three percent per month, and all interest received contributes to increasing the loan fund which is periodically, usually annually, distributed back to members. No external capital is required, making CBSGs transparent and profitable for the members.
> Posted by Elizabeth Davidson, Financial Inclusion 2020 Consultant
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.”
Does Walmart pose a threat to banks? Some bankers are apparently worried the retailer indeed does. As Bloomberg recently uncovered, a group of bankers that advises the Federal Reserve asked U.S. regulators to keep Walmart out of the financial services business, or at least strictly limit and regulate their financial services-related products, including its established prepaid card business. Offered in partnership with American Express, the prepaid cards, known as Bluebird, are even marketed as a “checking and debit alternative.” The bankers’ group, called the Federal Advisory Council, thinks they are not just an alternative to traditional financial services, but a bona fide financial service in a “shadow banking” system that enjoys less regulation than traditional commercial banks.
So, is Walmart a real threat to the traditional sector? Maybe, but it and other big retailers could have the potential to reach those excluded from or underserved by traditional commercial financial services.
Consider the example of Banco Azteca in Mexico.
Banco Azteca, which CFI’s Elisabeth Rhyne called a “mega-success story” in terms of its reach and to whom the Inter-American Development Bank recently awarded its “equalBanking” prize for support of diversity and gender equality through financial services to the base of the pyramid, has a much different beginning than most banks: it grew out of one of Mexico’s largest consumer goods retailers, Grupo Elektra. After almost 50 years of experience offering consumer financing to its working class customers, the retail chain opened Banco Azteca branches—notably, after receiving a banking license—in all of its existing stores, establishing Mexico’s second largest network of bank branches almost overnight.
> Posted by Ignacio Mas, Independent Consultant
That was a fun debate at Fletcher.
This or that? Formal or informal? Pro or con? Of course the answer always lies somewhere in the middle, it’s about and rather than or, to use the trite expression. It would certainly be ironic to seek to be inclusive by excluding options.
But in the case of financial inclusion, where a number of formal and informal services vie for relevance, what does this happy medium look like? I don’t see it as a bountiful fruit platter that people can pick from (now formal, now informal) as much as a richly layered cake.
The cake analogy is to represent the idea of platforms, of capabilities arranged horizontally and interworking with each other. Each layer brings a flavor, a texture, a color to the cake, but it is only when slices cut through the entire stack that the full cakeness comes through.
Let’s count the layers of financial inclusion. You need an identity layer, so that information can be traced back to individuals and histories can be constructed. You need an efficient money transfer layer, so that money can move efficiently and without delay between the various players when they are near or far. You need a cash distribution layer, with a multitude of localities where you can exchange various forms of money (cash to electronic, large bills into small change), on demand. You need enforcement mechanisms, so that IOUs can be trusted. You need a reliable accounting layer to keep track of all these contracts and IOUs. You need creative packaging of money transfers and IOUs into higher-level financial contracts (savings, credit, insurance, and combinations of all these) that connect more directly with people’s problems and needs. You need social connections and knowledge, so that people can variously give, lend, guarantee, and vouch for each other. You need people who can become evangelists, connectors, educators, marketers, to get others involved. You need, you need, you need…
I don’t mean to make it sound more complicated than it really is, or to bias the discussion towards formal just because I used some big words in there. Go through the list again: each of these functions can be done formally or informally, and in fact savings groups do all of the above in their own way. But we shouldn’t strive to create two layered cakes, the nutritious-but-wobbly and the glitzy-but-indigestible. The formal and informal layers need to mix in seamlessly.
> Posted by Jasmine Thomas, Program Officer for International Financial Capability & Asset Building, Citi Foundation
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.”
Lately, I’ve reflected upon the motto of a former clothing retailer that operated in the U.S.— “An educated consumer is our best customer.” In recent years, more NGOs, microfinance institutions, and financial service providers are beginning to embrace this notion. They are devoting more resources to building the financial skills of low-income microfinance clients and small savers, and increasing knowledge in the field about what helps them maintain positive financial behaviors.
Saving for the Big Day
So, does investing in the financial capability of clients really benefit both service providers and clients? Women’s World Banking and SEWA Bank in India believed that both investing in and ensuring that clients’ financial needs and goals were met would produce social and economic benefits for the institution and the clients. With our support, the organizations implemented Project Samruddhi to test this theory by embedding financial education within their core banking operations. To support clients’ efficacy, saathis, or bank agents, were taught how to embed short, concrete financial education messages in routine client banking interactions and services.
SEWA Bank and WWB also designed and launched a savings product that targeted clients’ specific financial goals, like paying for a daughter’s wedding. Each client established a savings plan, including the total amount needed as well as the frequency of deposits. A mobile phone app enabled clients with low literacy skills to visually see how their savings accumulated with each transaction. These regular graphic visuals of their progress fueled their motivation and sense of empowerment to continue saving to meet their goal. To measure client results, WWB assessed teller-client interactions, bank transactions, and client feedback.
> Posted by Meghan Greene, Manager, Microfinance CEO Working Group
Last June, at the annual Social Performance Task Force meeting in Jordan, the members of the Microfinance CEO Working Group and their lead social performance directors announced their plan to conduct the first large-scale analysis of the Universal Standards for Social Performance Management (USSPM) in practice, a process we called “beta testing.” You may recall our blog post about the plan last summer.
After a year of work, we’re ready to share our results, as detailed in the new working paper, “Insights from ‘Beta Testing’ the Universal Standards for Social Performance Management.”
As many of you know, the Universal Standards for Social Performance Management are a set of 99 “Essential Practices,” organized into six sections:
- Section 1: Define and Monitor Social Goals
- Section 2: Ensure Board, Management, and Employee Commitment to Social Goals
- Section 3: Treat Clients Responsibly (Essentially tracking the Smart Campaign)
- Section 4: Design Products, Services, Delivery Models, and Channels that Meet Clients’ Needs and Preferences
- Section 5: Treat Employees Responsibly
- Section 6: Balance Financial and Social Performance
The Universal Standards are considered applicable to all double bottom line microfinance institutions, and meeting the Standards signifies that an institution has strong social performance management practices. Clearly, implementing all 99 Essential Practices requires careful thought, planning, and execution, but we wanted to learn more about the process of translating the Standards into action. We partnered with more than 20 MFIs to work to answer a number of questions, including: Read the rest of this entry »
> Posted by Jenny C. Aker, Assistant Professor of Economics, Tufts University
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?
> Posted by Elisabeth Rhyne, Managing Director, CFI
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.
> Posted by Center Staff
“The old ideas have become akin to the sixteenth century assertion that the world was flat; yet it did gradually became established that the earth was round after all. Microfinance needs to be rounded too.” – Sanjay Sinha
Sanjay Sinha, founder of Micro-Credit Ratings International Limited (M-CRIL), recently released a candid wake-up call for the industry to move beyond the now outdated microfinance principles initially propagated in the 1990s and employ a more diverse and client-friendly approach. In his note, A Challenge to Flat-Earth Thinking in Microfinance, Sinha cites four tenets he finds especially problematic, contextualizing their adoption and negative implications, and positing how the industry can better move forward in meeting the needs of the poor. Sinha’s note follows:
The intensive promotion of microfinance worldwide as a palliative if not a panacea for poverty started in the mid‐1990s with initiatives like the establishment of CGAP, the Microcredit Summit Campaign, and various national-level apex agencies often sponsored by multilateral or bilateral development agencies like the World Bank and the regional development banks. Led by CGAP, as the main international technical agency for the support of microfinance, a strong message on the principles of good microfinance practice was propagated worldwide. These principles included (but were not limited to) the following:
- MFIs must adopt the principle of “zero tolerance of delinquency” in order to minimize default.
- There must be a continuous effort to limit operating costs in order to deliver microfinance at the lowest possible price to low income clients.
- Microfinance services must be offered by specialist MFIs in order to ensure that there are no conflicts of interest that confuse MFI managements, staff or borrowers.
- MFIs should focus on growth in order to maximize outreach to the vast numbers of financially excluded families across the globe.
This note argues that while these principles may have been appropriate at the time when they were formulated (in the mid‐1990s) their time passed a few years ago and the entrenchment of these principles as microfinance orthodoxy is now damaging the development objective – financial inclusion to serve the needs of poor and low income people, and facilitating income enhancement – for which the microfinance movement was propagated. Therefore, the time has come for a concerted effort to swing the pendulum back to equilibrium.
> Posted by Sonja E. Kelly, Fellow, CFI
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. Read the rest of this entry »
> Posted by Alyssa Passarelli, Communications and Operations Assistant, the Smart Campaign
The launch of Client Protection Certification in January 2013 is a significant milestone for the Smart Campaign and for the financial inclusion community. As an initiative that is the first of its kind, it shifts awareness of client protection in microfinance to an industry standard. The Smart Campaign and the licensed certifiers have been working diligently to get the word out about certification to help build engagement and a market for this important program.
A frequent request from participants in the certification webinar series was to clarify the difference between a Smart Assessment and a Client Protection Certification mission. While they differ in purpose, the important message is how they work hand-in-hand. Both assessments and certification are based on the 30 adequate standards of care rooted in the Smart Campaign’s seven Client Protection Principles (CPPs).
- An assessment is a report for management. It used the standards as reference to give an in-depth-”diagnostic,” with a grade of the MFI’s practices. The Smart Campaign recommends Smart Assessments as an excellent way for an MFI to prepare itself for certification.
- Certification is aimed at the stakeholders of an institution. It applies the standards as a firm benchmark for achievement that merits certification. With certification, a financial institution can tell clients, investors, and regulators that it takes adequate care to ensure that its clients are protected.
A Smart Assessment typically lasts four to five days and is conducted by two trained assessors who examine an MFI’s policies and procedures, as well as interview staff and clients. After the assessment field-visit, the MFI receives a lengthy and detailed confidential report that presents the assessors’ comments on each indicator, grading, and supporting evidence. As such, a Smart Assessment is a very useful opportunity for an MFI to see which areas of operations are in adherence with the standards and which need improvement. The cost of an assessment will vary depending on the MFI and the partner with which it collaborates. To date, the Smart Campaign has conducted over 75 assessments across the globe. Most of the organizations that are now Client Protection Certified first underwent an assessment to make sure they were prepared for the certification mission. You can learn more about Smart Assessments from Sergio Guzmán, Lead Specialist for the Smart Campaign.
Facebook
Twitter
Recent Comments