Muhammad Ahsan Arshad
Financial inclusion has become one of the major objectives of modern financial policy. Millions of people who once depended almost entirely on cash can now hold accounts and make payments through their mobile phones.
That is an important achievement. But having an account is not the same as achieving meaningful financial inclusion.
A person may have access to a mobile wallet yet regularly receive suspicious requests for their PIN or password. They may be able to make digital payments yet have little confidence that anyone will help if something goes wrong. They may be financially connected but not adequately protected.
A recent cross-country study of 16,387 mobile-money account owners across 35 economies provides a useful warning. Using data from the World Bank’s Global Findex 2024 survey, the study found that about 34 percent of respondents reported that an unknown person had asked them for their mobile-money PIN or password.
The research also found that people with greater exposure to digital payments were more likely to report such attempts. In other words, the expansion of digital financial services can create new opportunities for financial crime while also expanding access.
This should not be interpreted as an argument against digital financial inclusion. The study does not show that digital payments cause financial harm. It measures exposure to attempted credential solicitation rather than actual losses, and its observational design identifies associations rather than proving causation.
Its broader message concerns how financial inclusion should be designed.
If adoption is the first objective, protection must be the second.
The encouraging aspect of the evidence is that the risk does not appear to be fixed. The study found that stronger regulatory quality and government effectiveness were associated with lower predicted exposure to credential-fraud attempts. It also found evidence that stronger governance weakened the relationship between digital exposure and fraud attempts.
This suggests that institutions can influence the environment in which digital finance develops.
For policymakers, this means that the success of financial inclusion should not be measured only by the number of accounts opened, the number of digital transactions completed or the percentage of people using mobile money.
Other questions matter as well.
Can a customer easily report a suspicious message? Does the complaint receive a response? Are users clearly informed about what legitimate providers will never ask them to disclose? Are providers held accountable when weaknesses are identified? Can regulators obtain reliable information about fraud attempts, losses and recoveries?
These questions shift financial inclusion from a question of access to a question of trust.
Trust is especially important in digital finance because users cannot physically see the institutions behind every transaction. A person may never meet the bank, mobile-money provider or payment intermediary that holds or transfers their money. Confidence, therefore, depends heavily on the rules and protections surrounding the system.
Consumer awareness remains important. Users should understand that PINs, passwords and other confidential credentials should never be shared in response to unsolicited requests. However, responsibility cannot rest entirely with customers.
Providers have a responsibility to communicate clearly and make reporting straightforward. Regulators have a responsibility to supervise the system and ensure that consumer-protection standards keep pace with technological change. Governments and relevant institutions need effective mechanisms for coordination and enforcement.
The study also highlights the importance of better data. Its own measure focuses on attempted credential solicitation rather than actual financial losses and recovery outcomes. Without reliable information on attempts, losses and recoveries, it becomes difficult to assess the true scale of the problem or determine whether interventions are working.
The principle is simple: financial inclusion should not stop at access.
A person is not fully included simply because a financial account exists in their name. Meaningful inclusion requires the ability to use that account with reasonable confidence that the system will protect them, respond to problems and provide a credible route to redress.
Digital finance has the potential to bring millions more people into the formal financial system. That opportunity should be embraced. However, the institutions responsible for protecting users must develop alongside the technology.
Inclusion asks people to trust a system with their money.
The real policy challenge is to ensure that this trust is deserved.
