the need for financial literacy is easy, it is often challenging to clearly define what constitutes financial literacy. Based on 14 countries across four continents, Atkinson and Messy (2012) surveyed the financial landscape with regard to consumer understanding of financial literacy. On average, 1000 adult individuals (i.e. age 18+), both male and female across different income classes, were interviewed face-to-face regarding their financial knowledge, financial behavior, and attitudes and preference towards finance, and the results were summarized and collated. The results indicate important variations across countries. Illustratively, in several countries, a larger proportion of the population achieved a higher knowledge score than a high behavior score, indicating that levels of financial literacy in these countries are higher in terms of knowledge than behavior. Conversely, in several others, financial literacy levels were observed to be higher in terms of behavior. The relevant questions are highlighted in the table below.
There are several reasons why increased financial inclusion may support the central bank’s task of safeguarding financial stability. First, consumers gaining access to the formal financial system are likely to increase aggregate savings and diversify the banks’ depositor base (Aghion et al., 2009). Any increase in savings has the potential to improve the resilience of financial institutions, given the stability of retail deposit funding, as was evidenced during the crisis (Ratnovski and Huang, 2009; Raddatz, 2010; Cornett et al., 2011).
Second, by improving firms’ access to credit, financial inclusion can enable financial institutions to diversify their loan portfolios. Moreover, lending to firms that were previously financially excluded may also reduce the average credit risk of loan portfolios. Evidence suggests that an increase in the number of borrowers from small and medium-sized enterprises is associated with a reduction in delinquent loans and a lower probability of default by financial institutions (Bayoumi and Melander, 2008).
Third, financial inclusion facilitates greater participation by different segments of the economy in the formal financial system. The presence of a large informal sector can impair the transmission of monetary policy as a significant segment of financially excluded households and small businesses make financial decisions independent of, and uninfluenced by, the monetary policy actions. As the share of the formal financial sector increases through greater financial inclusion, it yields an important positive externality by increasing the efficacy of the monetary transmission process.
Financial inclusion also has important implications for the transmission of monetary policy. It helps consumers to smooth their intertemporal consumption pattern. This could potentially influence basic monetary policy choices, including which price index to target. Empirical research appears to suggest that inflation measures excluding food prices may be a poor guide to policy for economies with low levels of financial inclusion. This is the outcome of Engel’s law which states that at low levels of income, expenditure on food often dominates the budget of low-income households. When food prices rise, these households, lacking access to the financial sector, do not save the extra income, but instead increase consumption, in turn raising inflationary pressures.
Fifth, greater financial inclusion also strengthens the case for the interest rate channel of monetary policy. When financial inclusion is low, a large share of the money stock is typically accounted for by currency in circulation, with cash being the dominant mode of savings by households. As financial inclusion improves, consumers relocate their savings away from cash and into deposits. Given that the rewards for saving are affected by interest rates, greater financial access implies that a bigger share of economic activity comes under the purview of interest rates, making them a more potent tool for policymakers (Cecchetti and Kharroubi, 2012).
As governments become more actively involved in the financial inclusion agenda, a key challenge is defining roles for government in creating the broader and interconnected ecosystem of market actors needed for safe and efficient product delivery to the poor. The IMF (2014) has identified three major roles that have the potential for significant impact: (i) promoting healthy competition (promoter), (ii) creating an enabling regulatory environment (enabler), and (iii) strengthening financial infrastructure and driver of transaction volume (developer). While each of these roles can have significant impact, the application of these roles in any given jurisdiction will depend on country-specific factors, such as customer demand, market structure and maturity, and government policies.
Concluding Remarks
The goal of financial inclusion which is being currently pursued in India is a challenging one. Considerations of regulation, competition, and ownership in an integrated manner, enhanced oversight of financial markets, and a proactive focus towards financial infrastructure are all working together to help achieve the task of furthering financial inclusion in the country.
At a broader plane, driven by manifold developments, including technological advancements, there has been a marked progress in financial inclusion in the BRICS. The progress is far more in regard to account ownership as compared with use. Some of the reasons are economic, while others are more structural in nature. Newer and innovative ways of addressing these challenges are emerging, which holds the promise of greater financial inclusion, going forward. The FINDEX 2017 notes that two-third of unbanked adults have a mobile phone. While this holds the promise of reaching out to the unbanked in a cost-effective manner, it also raises the possibility of cyber risks that can impede the financial inclusion momentum. Addressing the challenges involved while reaching out to the last mile holds the promise of a greener tomorrow for the unbanked populace.
Acknowledgments
A part of the work was done when the author was working with the Centre for Advanced Financial Research and Learning, Mumbai, India. Useful suggestions from Partha Ray on an earlier draft are gratefully acknowledged. Needless to state, the views expressed and the approach pursued in the paper are strictly personal.
References
Aghion, P. and P. Bolton (1997). A theory of trickle-down growth and development. Review of Economic Studies, 64: 151–172.
Aghion, P., L. Boustan, C. Hoxby and J. Vandenbussche (2009). The causal effect of education on economic growth: Evidence from United States. In D. Romer and J. Wolfers (Eds.), Brookings Paper on Economic Activity (Spring). Available at [http://brookings.Edu/economics/bpea]
Aker, J. C. and I. Mbiti (2010). Mobile phones and economic development in Africa. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 24: 207–232.
Aker, J. C., R. Boumnijel, A. McClelland and N. Tierney (2016). Payment mechanisms and anti-poverty programs: Evidence from a mobile money cash transfer experiment in Niger. Economic Development and Cultural Change, 65: 1–37.
Allen, F., A. Demirguc-Kunt, L. Klapper, and M. S. Martinez Peria (2016). The foundations of financial inclusion: Understanding ownership and use of formal accounts. Journal of Financial Intermediation, 27: 1–20.
Amaral, S., S. Bandyopadhyay and R. Sensarma (2015). Employment programmes for the poor and female empowerment: The effect of NREGS on gender-based violence in India. Journal of Interdisciplinary Economics, 27: 199–218.
Amidzic, G., A. Massara and A. Mialou (2014). Assessing countries’ financial inclusion standing: A new composite index. IMF Working Paper 36. IMF: Washington DC.
Andrianaivo, M. and K. Kpodar (2012). Mobile phones, financial inclusion and growth. Review
