The Better Than Cash Alliance, hosted by UNCDF, gathered with colleagues at the Consultative Group to Assist the Poor (CGAP) Council of Governors Annual Meeting last month in Urubamba, Peru. The event brought together over 30 international organizations dedicated to expanding global financial inclusion.
Most members of the CGAP financial inclusion community understand in-principle the power of digital finance to reduce costs for reaching the financially excluded. We wanted this debate to spark new ways of thinking and understand the barriers that still stand in our way. To do this, we divided our panelists into the “affirmative” and “negative” teams, and gave them each a role to act out in the discussion.
After a lively debate summarized below, the three main conclusions of the discussion were:
Here is a recap of the arguments of the lively debate:
NEGATIVE | AFFIRMATIVE |
---|---|
Position: “Cash is not all bad for the financially excluded” | Position: “Digital financial services can extend financial inclusion” |
- Cash works for people who are unbanked – they have developed mechanisms that allow them to operate in the cash economy, so why “fix” a system that is not broken? | - Digital payment services can bring huge cost savings and increase efficiency for payers. They are also often cheaper or the only access option for payees, especially in remote areas and for rural communities |
- People like cash because it is tangible (unlike a digital wallet) and is accepted anywhere, which is important for functioning in local market economies. | - Digital financial services allow people to manage their money, better control how they use their funds, save for unpredictable needs such as health and emergencies and invest in business opportunities and in their household |
- Cash can be cheaper because the ecosystem around it is mature versus growing digital systems where players in the value chain are still looking for ways to get paid. | - Although cash is tangible and can be held in your hand, cash can be stolen or kickbacks required without trace, which increases risks for people who use cash. |
- Digital systems take a long time to set up in uncertain environments and the current digital infrastructure does not solve the range of product and service needs – it’s better to reduce complexity, especially in uncertainty. | - Digital financial services provide clients, and women in particular, greater privacy. |
- Cash can be easily understood it does not require memorizing passwords, help from an agent or waiting for ages to talk to a “help desk” when there is a problem. | - Digital services create a financial history over time, and give people pathways to greater inclusion |
- Cash is often integrated culturally and changing cultural practices takes a lot of time… although in some cases it digitizes cultural practices so works really well. | - The informal economy often deals in cash as a way to avoid taxes, digital finance ensures that payments are handled in a more transparent way and supports inclusion in the formal economy. |
CGAP partners rated the debate the highest of all the events at the annual meeting. For us, it is the sign that most players of the financial inclusion ecosystem are eager to learn how they could become more effective using digital finance to better serve their clients.