Financial inclusion programmes in low‐ and middle‐income countries: overview of reviews
Citation: Duvendack M, Mader P. Impact of financial inclusion in low‐ and middle‐income countries: A systematic review of reviews. Campbell Systematic Reviews. 2019; 15:e1012.
Language: Abstract and full text available in EN.
Free to view: Yes.
Funding sources: International Initiative for Impact Evaluation (3ie).
What is this? During the COVID-19 pandemic, job losses due to business closures disproportionately affected low-income families and less-skilled workers. Existing financial inclusion programmes seek to increase access to financial services such as credit, savings, insurance and money transfers, allowing low‐income households in low‐ and middle‐income countries to enhance their welfare, grasp opportunities, mitigate shocks and ultimately escape poverty.
In this Campbell overview, the authors searched for systematic reviews that evaluated the effects of financial inclusion programmes in low‐ and middle‐income countries. They did not restrict their searches by language but searched for articles published from 2010 to December 2018. They included 11 systematic reviews.
What was found: Impacts of financial inclusion programmes were likely to be more positive than negative, but the effects varied and appeared not to be transformative in scope or scale.
Overall, the effects of financial services on core economic poverty indicators such as incomes, assets or spending, and on health status are small and inconsistent and there is no evidence for meaningful behaviour-change outcomes leading to further positive effects.
The effects of financial services on women’s empowerment appear to be generally positive, but they depend on programme features which are often only peripheral or unrelated to the financial service itself (such as education about rights), cultural and geographical context, and what aspects of empowerment are considered.
Accessing savings opportunities appears to have small but more consistently positive effects for poor people and bears fewer downside risks for clients than credit.
Implications: The authors of the review stated that authors of primary studies and meta‐studies should engage more critically with study quality and ensure better, more detailed reporting of the concepts, data and methods they use.
Other considerations: The authors of the review discussed their findings in the context of place of residence, gender/sex and socioeconomic status.
This summary was prepared by Ana Pizarro, checked by Yasmeen Saeed, and finalized by Mike Clarke.