Archive for: G2P
by Greg Chen : Thursday, March 29, 2012
 Photo courtesy of SEWA This is the final post in a four-part series on branchless banking in India. The earlier blogs on MicroSave’s review of e/m-banking and the innovative service providers Beam and Eko demonstrated the power of convenience and simplicity. In keeping with this optimistic view of a still uncertain India venture, we conclude with three more positive items to highlight. Two reflect new changes by the government and one goes back to the fundamentals.
1. The Government of India has established a clearer vision for electronic payments and agents and aims to make a substantial investment to expand these capabilities across India.
The Government of India recently released a task force report on a unified payments infrastructure linked to the biometric Aadhaar number. While many questions remain, this report establishes important policy points. It recognizes the value of electronic payments to both cut costs for the government and bring convenience to the end recipients. It also sees G2P as a major flow of capital which can prime the pump, while recognizing that much more ought to flow over branchless banking channels. The Government of India also proposes to pay a 3.14% fee to banks for delivering G2P payments – a significant shift in the business case for banks. Some of the insights in the task force report built off of international G2P experiences shared by CGAP.
As always, there are potential pitfalls in this system, including the risk of building a single-purpose G2P payments infrastructure that is not widely usable for other payments. A supply push too hard by the government could create disruptions in customer service. There are other questions to contemplate such as whether biometric authentication of every transaction might forestall easier to use payments systems. such as PIN-based mobile phone payments, from emerging.
But these are all solvable challenges and the new momentum for branchless banking will shape the financial inclusion agenda in India in the coming months and years.
Read the rest of this page »
by Sarah Rotman : Wednesday, March 21, 2012
If you’re in Washington, DC please join us today (Wednesday, March 21) at 4:00 pm EST at the World Bank when co-authors David Porteous and I discuss the findings from the recent CGAP Focus Note, Social Cash Transfers and Financial Inclusion: Evidence from Four Countries.
If you’re not in Washington, DC, no problem. Watch a webcast of the event online here.
Opening Remarks
Tilman Ehrbeck, CEO, CGAP
Discussion of Findings
David Porteous, Managing Director, Bankable Frontier Associates
Sarah Rotman, Financial Sector Specialist, CGAP
Commentary and Analysis
Mansoora Rashid, Sector Manager, Social Protection, Human Development Department, Latin America and the Caribbean, The World Bank
Gaiv Tata, Director, Africa Region & Financial Inclusion Global Practice, Finance & Private Sector Development, The World Bank
When: Wednesday, March 21, 2012 from 4:00 pm – 5:30 pm EST
Where: J building – Room J 1-050 (701 18th Street, NW)
Read the transcript from last week’s online web chat about the paper here.
by David Porteous : Wednesday, March 14, 2012
David Porteous is Managing Director at Bankable Frontier Associates. This is the third blog in a series on G2P and financial inclusion, based on CGAP’s new Focus Note Social Cash Transfers and Financial Inclusion: Evidence from Four Countries. Read the first two posts here.
We are also releasing today the four accompanying Country Notes which were distilled into the Focus Note. For much more detail on the link between social cash transfers and financial services in each of these countries, read the full reports on Brazil, Colombia, Mexico and South Africa.
In our last post, Chris Bold discussed the second of three questions that our new paper on G2P tried to tackle, namely:
- For governments: Is building inclusive financial services into social cash transfer programs affordable for the social programs?
- For recipients: Will poor recipients use financial services if these are offered to them?
- For providers: Can financial institutions offer financially inclusive services to G2P payment recipients on a profitable basis?
Today, I will finish off the discussion by focusing on the final question regarding the business case for providers to offer financial services to social cash transfer recipients.
The biggest challenge when it comes to the business case for banks is that the amount per grant payment is small, and as client research has shown, very little of each payment is left behind in the form of savings. However, compared with other small value accounts, G2P recipient accounts have a regular dependable cash inflow ensuring that they stay active. And there is usually a government agency that is willing to pay for the service. But these anecdotal observations alone do not make or break the business case: it all depends on how the financial institution defines a business case.
To introduce greater precision to this discussion, we identify five different levels of the business case, as the figure below shows. The first level is each individual account. Small balance bank accounts are notoriously difficult to make profitable at the individual account level. But a business case may be sustained at this basic level for G2P payments if governments are willing to pay a regular fee to the banks, as they do in the four countries from our research. Without this fee, the account-level business case would be much harder to sustain. This is rather like the case for basic bank accounts which are considered loss leaders at this level by many banks, but which are nonetheless offered for strategic reasons (other profitable government business may be sold as a result of a good record) or to satisfy regulatory requirements (without regulatory support and forbearance, the bank may struggle to obtain approval for what it considers core business).
Read the rest of this page »
by Chris Bold : Tuesday, March 6, 2012
Chris Bold spent two years on secondment from DFID to CGAP where he worked on G2P-related issues, among other things. He has since returned to DFID where he is an Adviser on Private Sector Development in Fragile Countries. This is the second blog in a series on G2P and financial inclusion, based on CGAP’s new Focus Note Social Cash Transfers and Financial Inclusion: Evidence from Four Countries. Read the first post here.
Our recently released Focus Note on Social Cash Transfers and Financial Inclusion looks at the evidence from four large and well established programs in Brazil, Colombia, Mexico and South Africa to attempt to answer three broad questions that are relevant to different stakeholder groups:
- For governments: Is building inclusive financial services into social cash transfer programs affordable for the social programs?
- For recipients: Will poor recipients use financial services if these are offered to them?
- For providers: Can financial institutions offer financially inclusive services to G2P payment recipients on a profitable basis?
In the first post, Sarah Rotman looked at the costs to government. Today, I am going to expand on what we found about the recipient experience of receiving payments electronically and into “mainstream financial accounts”. David Porteous will look next at whether there is a business case for providers to offer financial services to social cash transfer recipients.
Last week, Sarah explained our characterization of payment approach into three categories: (i) physical cash, (ii) limited purpose instrument and (iii) mainstream financial accounts. We set the bar quite high for what we deemed to be fully “financially inclusive” – to earn the title of a mainstream financial account it must allow a recipient to store funds indefinitely, access them through the mainstream financial infrastructure (think ATMs and POS devices) and deposit additional funds. Some schemes only enable some of these features and while we recognize the steps that they are taking toward being fully financially inclusive we label these accounts “limited purpose”.
The data show a very clear trend over the past few years away from recipients receiving their payments in physical cash and toward electronic payments. Three of the four countries also showed increases in the number of customers receiving their transfers into a mainstream financial account with South Africa leading the way by paying 59% of transfers paid into mainstream accounts.
Read the rest of this page »
by Sarah Rotman : Tuesday, February 28, 2012
This is the first blog in a series on G2P and financial inclusion, based on CGAP’s new Focus Note “Social Cash Transfers and Financial Inclusion: Evidence from Four Countries”.
While I was in West Africa a few weeks ago, there was a recurring theme running through all our meetings. Whether we were meeting with MFIs, commercial banks, mobile network operators or third-party e-money issuers, they all came back saying about the same thing: their branchless banking business viability depended on capturing more flows of money to turn into consistent, revenue-generating transactions.
Branchless banking is, fundamentally, a business built on high-volume, low-value transactions. Over two years ago, colleagues and I published a Focus Note on the potential for government-to-person (G2P) payments to bring banking to the poor by leveraging the consistent flow of money that goes from governments to its citizens. In particular, social cash transfer programs were just beginning to make innovative changes to the way payments were made, mostly by transitioning from cash to electronic delivery. We wondered about the extent to which electronic payments could go even further by landing directly into the newly opened bank accounts of the beneficiaries.
But the evidence base at the time was sparse because these transitions were just getting started. Our paper was largely forward-looking by presenting the potential of this space, while posing still unanswered questions around three main topics:
- For governments: Is building inclusive financial services into social cash transfer programs affordable for the social programs?
- For recipients: Will poor recipients use financial services if these are offered to them?
- For providers: Can financial institutions offer financially inclusive services to G2P payment recipients on a profitable basis?
A lot has changed over the past two years. Our new Focus Note “Social Cash Transfers and Financial Inclusion: Evidence from Four Countries” attempts to answer these questions by building off of the evidence base from four large social cash transfer programs: Bolsa Familia in Brazil, Familias en Accion in Colombia, Oportunidades in Mexico, and Child Care Grants and Old Age Pensions in South Africa. We selected these countries because they are the few that have pursued the twin objectives of electronic government payments and financial inclusion at scale. Admittedly, these countries are all large, middle-income countries with relatively well-developed financial infrastructure. But unfortunately, and quite telling I think, the evidence base does not yet allow us to speak to the situation of low-income countries because G2P-linked financial inclusion is only happening at a pilot level in these countries, if at all.
Over the coming weeks on this blog, my two co-authors, Chris Bold (DFID), David Porteous (Bankable Frontier Associates) and I will provide an overview of the answers to the three questions posed above. Today, I tackle the first question regarding the cost to governments. I have found this question in particular to be asked quite often by social protection practitioners, for good reason. But before I get to that, I first need to frame the discussion with an updated categorization of payment approaches that our paper presents.
Read the rest of this page »
 Photo courtesy of MicroSave India is undergoing a significant expansion in the use of agents (Business Correspondents) to offer a range of financial services. There are many questions about whether this present expansion can be sustained. A new publication from MicroSave highlights reasons for optimism. To understand this perspective, Greg Chen, CGAP’s Regional Representative for South Asia, asked Graham A. N. Wright, the founding Director of MicroSave, a series of questions about branchless banking in India (note: MicroSave uses the term electronic/mobile-banking or “e/m-banking” to describe this field, while we at CGAP tend to use “branchless banking”). MicroSave has a large presence in India with over 80 staff and a large practice focusing on: e/m-banking; microfinance; SME; private sector development and responsible finance.
Question: MicroSave’s latest discussion paper on branchless banking in India portrays a decidedly optimistic picture. How did you arrive at this and what are some of the positive conditions you see?
Graham Wright, MicroSave: India has huge opportunity to leverage the potential of e/m-banking and build a cash-light economy. In addition to its cutting edge information technology industry and relatively dense population, the Government of India is clearly determined to achieve financial inclusion through digital money and is taking aggressive steps to see this happen.
The gradual regulatory evolution to support business correspondent network managers (BCNMs) and banks in their outreach efforts continues – and the results are beginning to emerge. While the emphasis continues to be on numbers, the targets are such that large scale outreach infrastructure is being built in a short time frame, with an agent covering every village with a population greater than 2,000. This, coupled with the government’s resolve to move to cash-based subsidy transfer and social security payments systems, will ensure transactions. Institutions such as the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) could greatly ease customer KYC and authentication, and the National Payments Corporation of India (NCPI) has already built a national switch for inter-bank mobile transactions. This infrastructure could play expanded roles as systemic back-bones that support different players and bring about interoperability.
Question: The services necessary for financial inclusion are much broader and so what are the anchor or lead products for building agent-based branchless banking systems in India?
Read the rest of this page »
by Sarah Rotman : Wednesday, January 4, 2012
One of the exciting and yet challenging aspects of the branchless banking industry is how fast things change. Topics discussed just 3 months ago can seem out of date today. That’s why it’s fun to look back over the topics we blogged about in 2011 starting from last January to see how the discussion has evolved over the last 12 months. Here are just a few of the blogs you may have missed or you may be interested in reading again:
 ASHAs (Accredited State Health Activists) in Bihar receiving their incentive payments through Eko's mobile money transfer service We often write on this blog about the potential to link government-to-person (G2P) payments to financial services. We also closely follow branchless banking developments in India and have recently shared our take on the market. So imagine our excitement when we can talk about both together!
India is just one of a handful of countries that is implementing financially-linked G2P payments at scale. And of course, “scale” in India – a country with nearly 1.2 billion people – means something a bit bigger than in most countries. In India in 2008-2009, 22 welfare schemes paid out a total $65 billion to tens of millions of Indians – which doesn’t even include the substantial G2P flows for government salaries and small savings schemes. The yearly budget of the National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (NREGS), one of two welfare schemes that dominate the G2P payments space is $6.7 billion. And, most excitingly from our perspective, these schemes are leveraging emerging branchless banking models to disburse these payments, moving from the former branch- and cash-based distribution model to the distribution of funds into no-frills bank accounts serviced by business correspondents outside of branches.
Not surprisingly, though, this is only the start of the story. While the ambitious link of G2P payments to bank accounts is exciting and can be a source of learning and inspiration for other countries, challenges and complexities persist. We visited India this summer to learn more about G2P payments as they relate to financial inclusion. Our full overview note is available here, but here’s a summary of our key insights.
- State governments exercise significant control over the management and administration of central government-mandated G2P schemes, and there is great variability in the fees paid by state governments to banks for disbursing funds to citizens – some states pay 2% of values disbursed (or more), but others refuse to pay anything. This weakens the business case for banks and fails to generate enough money to feed the many mouths in the G2P value chain.
- Business correspondent network managers (BCNMs) are particularly squeezed, as they must compensate their network to keep them engaged and reliable, but the current fee structures from banks leave little money left over.
- In the absence of transaction fees, many banks appear motivated to disburse G2P transfers because they view this as a “foot in the door” for future business from governments, an especially compelling prospect for private banks who have traditionally been boxed out of this business by public-sector banks.
Read the rest of this page »
by Sarah Rotman : Thursday, September 29, 2011
 One of many Brazilian agents that move people outside of bank branches I’m blogging from Dakar, Senegal where I had a stark reminder of why innovation in financial services is so necessary. A colleague of mine had a check to cash, so after one of our meetings we made our way to a “to-remain-unnamed” bank in the city center. Good thing I decided not to wait in the car because this relatively simple transaction took well over an hour to complete. First we had to wait about 30 minutes for our number to be called behind all the people waiting ahead of us. But once he was at the teller, it still took my colleague about 45 minutes to finally walk away with his cash.
My intention is by no means to bash banks…the computer system seemed to be running slowly and the check was for a couple thousand dollars, so he was sent to another desk for some sort of extra authorization. But it was a good, and admittedly frustrating, reminder of the potential of branchless banking, technology and innovative business models to transform the way people, especially the unbanked, access financial services…outside of bank branches.
This experience aside, the Senegalese market is full of exciting initiatives and inspiring energy from banks, MFIs, mobile network operators, technology companies, various government institutions and the central bank. In perusing my Google feed of news on branchless and mobile banking, there are plenty of things around the world to get excited about. Here are just a few that caught my eye:
One of the banks that has a regional presence in the West African Economic and Monetary Union (WAEMU – of which Senegal is a part) is Morroccan-based Attijariwafa Bank. Wafacash, a specialized subsidiary of Attijariwafa and leader in international money transfers, announced the launch of a new mobile money transfer corridor in partnership with Belgacom subsidiary BICS between Belgium and Morocco.
A new study reports on the first randomized evaluation of a cash transfer program delivered via the mobile phone – Zain’s Zap service in Niger (now Airtel’s Airtel Money). The report highlights several benefits of this new delivery mechanism and we’ll be profiling this experience in more depth on our blog in the coming weeks.
Also related to cash transfers, a new report by UNCDF examines Fiji’s experience in leveraging government-to-person (G2P) payments as a mechanism to enhance financial inclusion and provide savings to government and social welfare recipients via a savings-linked electronic payment system.
In Bangladesh, the Bangladesh Bank has just published new guidelines on mobile financial services and the Financial Express reports that nearly a dozen banks are preparing to introduce such services, in addition to those services that are already in the market.
In Pakistan, the largest mobile network operator Mobilink, a subsidiary of Orascom Telecom, was recently granted a license by the State Bank of Pakistan to initiate microfinance activities, seen as their foray into branchless banking.
But I admit that what excited me the most when I looked through my Google feed was the fact that I read more than 20 headlines before finding a story that mentioned M-PESA. The rest of the world is catching up!
- Sarah Rotman
by Chrissy Martin : Thursday, September 15, 2011
Chrissy Martin is currently a Senior Consultant at MEDA. Previously, she worked for 12 months as the Product Manager for Digicel in Haiti, which has rolled out a mobile money service called TchoTcho Mobile. Through both Digicel and MEDA, Chrissy has worked with several NGOs that are interested in mobile money services to make payments to beneficiaries of cash-for-work programs. She outlines some of practical challenges that have to be overcome to make this a reality.
 Mobile Money in Haiti There are many reasons to be excited about mobile phones as a way to distribute cash transfers, such as government payments or NGO cash-for-work programs. First, cash transfers are often sent to groups of people in multiple locations, and it can be easier to reach them via mobile than to bring them together in one place. It is also easier to track payments if they are sent electronically, which can reduce corruption and increase confidence that the right amount of money ends up with the right individuals. A third possible benefit is that relying on a network of mobile money agents who already handle cash will increase security over creating new systems for transporting cash. This was the situation in Haiti, where cash-for-work payments were made on-site at camps, which created a security risk for the bank employees who had to stand with and distribute large amounts of cash in crowded, outdoor locations. For these reasons – the potential to have a more convenient, secure, and traceable method to distribute payments – mobile cash transfers have been attempted in multiple countries from Pakistan to Niger.
Unfortunately, implementation on the ground often proves to be far more difficult than it seems at first glance. The first and most obvious challenge: not everyone has a mobile phone, let alone an account linked to their phone which can accept fund transfers. Despite all of the justified excitement over the rapid growth of mobile phones worldwide, in any given developing country a large minority of people may still not own a phone, and these people are likely the marginalized populations that are often targeted by social cash transfers. In this case, an organization (NGO or government entity) planning to implement such a program has a few choices:
Read the rest of this page »
|
 |
|
