Week of April 10th, 2020 (faiVLive)

This week’s edition of the faiV was a faiVLive — a webinar featuring a panel of experts discussing the impact of Covid-19 on MFI clients and other poor households.

About the Webinar

This edition of faiVLive brings together expert practitioners and researchers to discuss how we should be thinking about the impact of COVID-19 and pandemic control policies on poor households in developing countries, what policy interventions are plausible and possible, what role does microfinance have to play, and what needs to happen to enable the global microfinance industry to be useful now and six months from now.

Featuring

  • Shameran Abed, Senior Director of BRAC’s microfinance and ultrapoor graduation schemes

  • Greta Bull, CEO of CGAP and a director at the World Bank Group

  • Deborah Burand, Professor of Clinical Law at NYU and the Co-Director of the Grunin Center for Law and Social Entrepreneurship

  • Neville Crawley, CEO at Kiva

  • Jonathan Morduch, Professor of Public Policy and Economics at NYU-Wagner, and a founder and Executive Director of the Financial Access Initiative

  • Stuart Rutherford, Leader of the Hrishipara Financial Diaries; founder and Chairman of Bangladeshi financial services co-operative SafeSave

Moderator

Timothy Ogden, Managing Director of the NYU Financial Access Initiative

Support

This faiVLive is part of the Household Financial Security Insight Community, supported by the Mastercard Impact fund, and in collaboration with the Mastercard Center for Inclusive Growth.

Week of April 3, 2020

Editor's Note: The only two predictions I feel I confident in making right now are that a) we will find some new phrase for opening a conversation other than "How are you?" or at least some new way to answer the question, and b) that the trend of putting webcams on the bottom of a laptop screen is over. Thanks to all of you who reached out in reaction to the abbreviated version of the faiV last week focused on my concerns about the future of microfinance in the US and globally. Please keep sending information and thoughts my way.

Read More

Week of March 23, 2020

Editor’s Note: What a difference a month makes. I've started drafting a new edition of the faiV several times over the last six weeks, but events kept overwhelming the moment and I put it off again. Now it seems that events have overwhelmed everything. And so, here is a special edition of the faiV with few links and only two thoughts around one central theme: the existential crisis for microfinance globally.

Read More

The Truth about (SME) Training

This edition of the faiVLive featured Tim Ogden, Managing Director of the Financial Access Initiative at NYU shared the latest insights on SME business training programs, with guest speaker David McKenzie, Lead Economist in the Development Research Group, Finance and Private Sector Development Unit at the World Bank. Tim and David discussed what we know about small business performance and productivity, the importance of management, and training impact evaluations--all essential for innovating SME training programs.

Read More

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.

Read More

Week of January 24, 2020

1. SMEs: So this is kind of old, at least in faiV terms. But it's new to me, and a good illustration of one of the fundamental ideas that underpins how I look at all research/interventions related to SMEs: Reality has a surprising amount of detail. The point the author is making is quite different from what I take from it, so let me explain a bit more. Figuring out how to run a small business, in most contexts where we care about helping people running small businesses--developing countries, marginalized groups or areas in developed countries, other people markets and regulation have failed--is really, really hard because there is a surprising amount of detail at every step in the process. Product, location, competition, marketing, production, accounting, financing, investment--all of them involve a surprising amount of detail, and lots of little ways to get things wrong. But with so much detail it's hard to figure out if something is going wrong, much less what specific thing is going wrong.
At this surprising level of detail we tend to throw programs that either only address one small detail (e.g. incentives for formalization), or lots of details spread out across many tasks (e.g. business training). In both cases we see small or negligible effects for the most part (in part because most impact evaluations of training don't have nearly enough power to detect the size of change we could reasonably expect).
That's a fairly long disquisition to set up that the next faiVLive will be on the topic of SME business training specifically. On February 20th, at 10am Eastern, David McKenzie and I will discuss what we know about SME performance, management, survival and especially training. Register to join us here.
Finally, while I remain one of the holdouts against the term "financial health" (more on that another day), here's a report from my old colleague Piotr Korynski, now at The Microfinance Centre, looking at the application of financial health to SMEs. It's definitely worth a read to start peeling back layers on the surprising level of detail required to really understand what is happening inside SMEs.

2. Cash: At this point I feel like any discussion of the death of cash should come with a mandatory voiceover of Mark Twain saying "Reports of my death have been greatly exaggerated." Here's Olivier Usher from Nesta on 2020 being a tipping point in the "cash crash." There are some interesting data points here, and more importantly, some important questions about how payment mechanisms affect behavior, or allow others to control behavior.
The virtual voiceover to this particular death of cash pronouncement is from New York City, where the city council just yesterday approved a regulation requiring all businesses in the city to accept cash as payment. That means that 3 of the 15 largest cities in the US, as well as the entire state of New Jersey have banned the death of cash.
 
3. Financial Inclusion: Financial inclusion, like cash, has frequently been confined to the dustbin of history in recent years, in favor of other terms. As I mentioned I still prefer inclusion (while noting the irony of the name of the research center I manage) but the reasons that others don't are fair and reasonable. One of the main reasons "inclusion" replaced "access" was the recognition that opening lots of dormant accounts really shouldn't count for anything. But shifting terms didn't really blunt the criticism. Here's Bhavana Srivastava and co. from MSC on when financial inclusion is not inclusive for women, and how to change that. Here's IDEO.org on essentially the same topic, looking at what it will take to include women in the financial system in Tanzania, Bangladesh, Kenya, Nigeria, Pakistan and India. And here's Mayada El-Zoghbi on why measures of access and inclusion don't square up with each other.
Bobbi Gray of the Grameen Foundation also has some problems with financial inclusion (sort of)--here's her list of financial inclusion "notions that must die." Of particular note is the third: financial inclusion is always positive. Keep that one in mind while you read this piece on "financial inclusion will see mass market adoption in 2020." If you're wondering what that means, I'm not sure you'll gain much insight from reading it--it's another in a long line of proclamations that "new data" is going to solve all the problems of financial inclusion. But their is one particular sentence that meant I had to link it: "one can only hope that common-sense regulations will enable these technological advances to deliver on their promise of greater financial inclusion." There are so many ways to read that sentence! And most of them aren't encouraging, but are probably right.
To illuminate that somewhat obscure criticism, here's a piece on a highly effective, yet illegal, way to make lending fairer to women. There is no such thing as "common-sense" regulation. This stuff is really, really hard--this would be a good time to go back to the link to Mayada's piece above and read it if you haven't.

Read More

Week of January 10, 2020

1. Looking Ahead: I've been pretty haphazard in announcing some important new things at FAI that are going to affect the faiV, in part directly and in part because they drive how I spend my time and what I pay attention to. First, we've received a three year grant from the Mastercard Impact Fund in collaboration with the Mastercard Center for Inclusive Growth to focus on Household Financial Security and on Small and Medium Enterprises. We'll be doing some original research internationally and in the US that I'm pretty excited about. But I'm most excited about two aspects of the new grant: 1) It allows us to think about issues globally without silos about developing countries or developed countries, US or non-US (and if you read the faiV regularly you know taking that perspective is one of my soapboxes, see Great Convergence below), and 2) an explicit part of our goals is to better connect research, policy and practice through what we're calling "learning communities" (and being at the nexus of research, policy and practice has always been our goal for FAI, and I where I think our greatest value lies). If you're focused on one of those topics and would like to be part of a learning community, please do reach out.
At FAI, we've also recently received support from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation to follow-up on and replicate research on facilitating urban-to-rural digital remittances in South Asia. The original study, in Bangladesh, found that encouraging migrants from rural villages to Dhaka to use mobile money for remittances to their home village had substantial positive impacts on consumption and savings for both senders and receivers. We'll be following up with the subjects of the original study and trying to determine to what extent similar gains are possible in other locations. It hits squarely on some important but neglected questions on migration as a household financial security strategy.
The Gates Foundation is also supporting the faiV directly, specifically to help us increase coverage from developing country researchers and other under-represented minorities, and to expand readership outside of the US/UK. In that regard, I'd definitely like your help in 2020. Would you recommend the faiV to colleagues in other countries? And when you see research from those outside the existing development economics industrial complex that deserves more attention, please do send it my way.

2. Looking Back/In Memoriam: We start the 2020s without one of the most important and influential individuals in the modern fight against extreme poverty: Sir Fasle Abed, founder of BRAC. When I do think about it, I'm flummoxed that Sir Abed was not much, much more famous than he is. He seems to fit in a category with, say, Norman Borlaug--people who profoundly changed the lives of countless people living in extreme poverty but who is nearly anonymous. Although perhaps the better analogs for Sir Abed are Sakichi and Kiichiro Toyoda, the father and son who founded Toyota and laid the groundwork for what is now known as lean manufacturing. Unlike Borlaug whose work is easier to tie directly to millions of people avoiding starvation, the Toyodas created an institution that fundamentally changed an industry (and perceptions of an entire country), and is for all intents and purposes universally respected as a key leader and innovator in its field.
BRAC is not only arguably the largest NGO in the world, but it's deep commitment to research and innovation is as unique and path-breaking as Toyota's has been to eliminating waste and improving quality. BRAC is probably most known for pioneering and documenting Oral Rehydration Therapy, and for inventing the "graduation"/Targeting the Ultra-Poor program, and for being one of the largest microfinance institutions in the world. But there are innumerable other rigorous research collaborations. Here are just a few papers from the last year based on collaborations with BRAC: 1) a women's empowerment program in Uganda, and a similar program in Sierra Leone, 2) a community health promoter program, 3) delivering microcredit to women in a mobile money account that they individually own, and 4) agricultural extension and malaria reduction. Honestly, is there any organization in the world that can compete with a publication record like that? Are there any other NGOs that have started their own universities?
But the thing that is most impressive to me about Sir Abed is that there is little doubt that BRAC will continue as it has without him. That is the ultimate mark of long-term impact. If you'd like to part of that, BRAC is hiring researchers.

Read More

Week of December 13, 2019

1. Global Development: In my early days of blogging global development and philanthropy stuff, the Millennium Villages Project--and specifically the controversy over claims of impact and whether to measure impact at all--were a really big deal. In a true blast from the past, the impact evaluation of a Ghanaian MVP  has finally been published and found little to no impact. Little to no impact on core welfare indicators and little to no impact on spillovers or "cost-saving synergies." That impact evaluation only happened because Michael Clemens and Gabriel Demombynes went to the mat to convince DfID not to fund expansion unless it included independent evaluation. Here's a thread from Demombynes on that, and one from Clemens. It's worth noting that the MVP not only actively resisted impact evaluation but threatened Clemens and Demombynes with a lawsuit to stop their efforts.
I've been thinking about this a lot in relation to criticism of the RCT movement around the recently awarded Nobel prizes. This paper isn't an RCT--it's a Diff-in-Diff with matched villages and propensity score matching! The point is the distance we have traveled in terms of demanding credible evidence on development interventions in a very short period of time is underappreciated. It was less than a decade ago that literally the highest profile development intervention in the world was insisting that there was no need for an impact evaluation, a control group, etc. and there was actual controversy over that position. And I do think that the randomistas are largely responsible for that change where the debate is about the relative credibility and cost-benefit of different approaches to measuring impact, and external validity of findings, not on whether to engage in credible impact evaluation.
There are other controversies from the global development past that are resurfacing, if only in Justin Sandefur's Twitter timeline. Justin--I presume because he's going to be teaching a development class at Georgetown this spring--has been asking some interesting questions and getting some interesting responses. Like, given the credibility revolution, and follow-on work, how should we think about Paul Collier's The Bottom Billion? Or how separable are Peter Singer's support for altruism, e.g. The Life You Can Save, and his support for murdering disabled babies. I guess I tipped my hand on how I feel about the latter. I can't exactly be objective here as the father of a 13 year old who, in a Singerian world, could have qualified for "elimination." Justin links to an amazing essay by Harriet McBryde Johnson that I had forgotten, but am very glad I read again--you should read it too regardless of whether you have or not. The question is one I'd been able to ignore for a long time--cognitive dissonance is powerful--and I'm grateful to have been forced to think about it again.

2. Digital Financial Services: Usually when we talk about digital financial services it's about delivering a specific financial service via digital channels. But here's a paper on digital delivery of guilt about the use of financial services. Specifically, it's an intervention where people are shown a Nollywood movie whose plot is driven by "bad" choices in relation to borrowing and saving. They find that watching the movie does induce people to open savings accounts but not to use them to, y'know, save. That's consistent with a lot of the research on savings (some of which was highlighted by the eMFP team last week). Clearly there are lots of nudges that can get people to open accounts and even to save in them, but those nudges rarely lead to meaningful ongoing use or significant savings balances.
There are exceptions of course, and here's a post from the A16Z FinTech blog that highlights a few of them. There's a common theme: savings encouragement works when it removes the consumer from the equation, or uses their bad decision making for good. Kinda dark, huh? Of note here is the idea of "self-driving money"--customizing the services and products to the needs and often irrational behavior of particular customers. It's a great concept, but there is a key question missing: where are the financial services firms that are going to automatically help a customer into a product that is less profitable but better for the customer? And in case you didn't know, financial services firms are already customizing products based on consumer biases: by sending credit card offers that are more likely to be profitable for the issuer.
On a more traditional digital financial services footing, here's a discussion of digital remittances and the lack of progress toward remittances that stay digital. I continue to find it remarkable that keeping transactions digital--e.g. not having users cash out--is assumed, without any explanation, to be obviously good for users. It's a particular case where the DFS community seems to consistently be ignoring the signals that customers are giving them. The explanations for why people don't stay in digital never seems to consider the most obvious answer: there's no benefit to the user. When there is actually benefit to customers of staying digital I have no doubt that they will do so.

Read More

Week of December 6, 2019

1. Trends: Futurism has always come more easily to technologists than policy wonks (probably because it’s easier). But big gatherings are a good chance to look ahead to how the whole inclusive finance ecosystem, getting more complex each year, will evolve. e-MFP’s annual survey of financial inclusion trends – the Financial Inclusion Compass 2019 – was launched during EMW2019, and tries to do just this. If there were a single theme to this paper, it’s the disconnect between, on the one hand, individual stakeholders with their own interests and objectives, and on the other a collective confusion, a ‘soul-searching’ of sorts, for financial inclusion’s purpose amidst the panoply of initiatives and indicators in a sector of now bewildering complexity.

Digital transformation of institutions ranked top, a theme that dominated last year’s European Microfinance Award (EMA) and EMW, with Graham Wright’s keynote call for MFIs to “Digitise or Die!” (and see also the FinDev webinar series on the subject). Client protection remains at the forefront, (second in the rankings, see point 4 below for more going on here) and client-side digital innovations, despite the ubiquitous hype, is only in third overall – and only 7th among practitioners, who actually have to implement FinTech for clients. Do they know something that consultants and investors do not? Among New Areas of Focus (which looks 5-10 years down the track), Agri-Finance is clearly top. The Rural and Agricultural Finance Learning Lab, Mastercard Foundation and ISF Advisors’ Pathways to Prosperity presents the current state-of-the-sector. It’s worth looking at. Finally, Social Performance and/or Impact Measurement is 5th out of 20 trends. There’s too much to choose from here. But the CGAP blog on impact and evidence digs into the subject from a whole range of angles. And check out Tim’s CDC paper [No quid pro quo!--Tim] from earlier this year on the impact of investing in financial systems. Good to see that financial regulators are also giving this the attention it needs.

Finally, finance for refugees and displaced populations generated a lot of comments in the Compass - and was the biggest jumper in the New Area of Focus rankings. It’s been a big part of EMW for the last few years; climate migration was the theme of the excellent conference opening keynote by Tim McDonnell, journalist and National Geographic Explorer, and there’s lots of recent data (here in a World Bank blog) showing refugee numbers at (modern) record levels. Migration of course is inextricably linked to labor conditions. Low paid and low quality work drives migration [maybe we should have more research on migration as a household finance strategy--Tim]. For more on the ‘World of Work’ in the coming century, see below.

2. Climate Change: There may be more evolution in climate change/climate finance than any other area of financial inclusion today. From our side, the European Microfinance Award 2019 on ‘Strengthening Climate Change Resilience’ wrapped up last month, with APA Insurance Ltd of Kenya chosen as the winner for insuring pastoralists against forage deterioration that result in livestock deaths due to droughts . Forage availability is determined by satellite data, via the Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI). A short video on the program can be seen here.

The severity of climate change and the increasing impact it has on the world’s most vulnerable hardly needs outlining here. Progress has been excruciatingly slow. But a new report by the Global Commission on Adaptation, headed by Bill Gates and former U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, aims to change that. Released in September 2019, it mapped out a $1.8 trillion blueprint to ready the world to withstand intensifying climate impacts. The Commission launched the report in a dozen capitals, with the overarching goal of jolting governments and businesses into action.

A bunch of recent publications illustrate the overdue acceleration of responses. The Economist Intelligence Unit’s Climate Change Resilience Index is pretty stark reading. Africa will be hit the hardest by climate change according to the Index – with 4.7% real GDP loss by 2050 (well supported by the rankings in the ND-Gain index from Notre Dame Global Adaptation Initiative (ND-GAIN), which summarizes countries’ vulnerability to (and readiness for) climate change. The EIU index shows that institutional quality matters a lot in minimising the effects. The paper also presents three case studies that highlight the importance of both economic development and policy effectiveness to tackle climate change. It’s worth a (fairly frightening) read. So is AFI’s new paper “Inclusive green finance: a survey of the policy landscape”, which asks and answers why financial regulators are working on climate change, how they have been integrating climate change concerns in their national financial inclusion policies and other financial sector strategies, and how they are collaborating with national agencies or institutions. Blue Orchard has also just published "Rethinking Climate Finance" which points to a US$400 billion shortfall by 2030 in climate finance, just to keep global temperatures within the 1.5 Celsius limit. The authors advocate various blended-finance products to encourage private sector investment, which, their survey reveals, is woefully low considering how significantly those investors perceive climate change risk to their portfolios.

Read More