Academics, Innovators and Regulators at "Digital Finance in Africa’s Future"

By Sibel Kusimba, American University and Solène Morvant-Roux, University of Geneva

Sean Maliehe, Lena Gronbach  (Human Economy Program, University of Pretoria)

The international colloquium entitled “Digital Finance in Africa’s Future: Innovations and Implications” was held in Johannesburg South Africa on 22-26 Oct. 2018, organized by the Human Economy Research Programme at the University of Pretoria and the Johannesburg Institute for Advanced Study (JIAS), in association with Disrupting Africa.

The colloquium was unusual in bringing together and encouraging interaction amongst academics studying digital finance along with African innovators (entrepreneurs), regulators/consultants and development professionals to discuss the latest developments and their impacts. For academics it was a unique opportunity to engage more with important actors in this space especially regulators and innovators. List of presenters can be found here.

John Sharp, Director of the Human Economy Program of the University of Pretoria, put it succinctly: “You need corporations and big money if your human economy is going to work. We need to think about how to bring the people with power into the conversation.”

One distinct aspect of the colloquium was the relatively small size of the group, with less than 20 participants. The live internet feed and the large public talk that launched the colloquium on the evening of Oct 22 brought larger numbers of participants, giving the meeting both an intimate feeling as well as exposure to the public and a medium to broadcast the talks and discussions to online viewers.


Innovators and Providers’ Perspectives on Academic Knowledge

The emerging and rapidly changing field of digital finance and its entwinement with development policies is often hard for academics to study. Financial services and development interests produce large amounts of data and studies, often very detailed but with an aim to find use cases for financial products, so their claims are difficult to evaluate. Often the perspective of academia feels too critical or not relevant (too complex) to innovators or practitioners. Our discussions often tried to broach these differences.

For example, we discussed the uses of well-known financial diaries developed by scholars with a view of better capturing people’s financial behavior. The collective discussion ended up challenging the broad industry belief that these reports represent a kind of pure empirical or ethnographic view of financial behavior - partly because of their detailed recording of expenditures. These industry reports and the understandings of finance they produce often focus on inflows and outflows over relatively short periods and may assume financial explanations for peoples’ behavior without assessing alternatives. In one often-cited example from Kenya, a family cannot raise enough money for a sick person, but a few weeks later raises abundant money for her funeral after she unfortunately dies for lack of care. This story is frequently used to posit a need for different financial tools that can nudge a more rational response to illness. However, a lack of trust in medical care and many other cultural reasons, important in their own right, could also explain a lack of fundraising for a hospital stay.

At the same time, our discussion showed that the more inductive approach of anthropology seems to collect information that providers and innovators may not find clearly relevant. For instance, one professional in insurance offered that his experience with oft-touted “Human Centered Design” (which is a kind of “fast” ethnography) had led to assumptions that actual users ended up refuting once the product was rolled out. Anthropological studies presented by Kusimba and Morvant-Roux also came to a fuzzy conclusion. People want to be interconnected with others using financial technologies, but they want to be autonomous as well. More work needs to be done to further understandings that can make sense for product development.

Sibel Kusimba (American University)

The study done by Nnamdi Oranye on undocumented migrants in Nigeria also highlighted that meeting social obligations is as important as being able to fulfill personal projects and aspirations (and therefore call for specific financial services). This result was confirmed by Morvant-Roux from a study on undocumented Mexican migrants living in the USA. Financial services around international remittances would do a better job by acknowledging such a duality rather than trying to induce a rationality that doesn’t really exist.

It was humbling and also inspiring to learn more about the perspectives of innovators. For them the Silicon Valley catchwords like “disruption” have a lure and a kind of hope for African innovation that academics might take more seriously. At the same time the entrepreneurs also revealed that their pitches for funding often must refer to frameworks around charity and African development, which many felt influence the kinds of fintech that get funded in Africa. One innovator located his company in the Philippines after being frustrated by this mindset among Western venture capitalists.

The Regulatory Future of African Finance

The final area of great interest and a real opportunity for new exposure for an academic was the important talks by regulators. Dr. Steven Nduati was a Central Bank of Kenya payments regulator behind the M-Pesa legend, who felt that regulation must anticipate how financial technologies eventually work but must also be flexible and responsive to how these new technologies end up being used. The former Finance Minister of South Africa, Trevor Manuel, gave a compelling keynote. Speaking around “the intersection between finance and data," he noted that in the past politics involved land and physical assets – but in the 21st century, there will be an economy of data. How will African governments deal with privacy and security issues, and who controls and owns the data? A marked example was the case of South Africa’s innovative government cash transfer programs.  In the case of Sassa, Gronbach brought evidence that the South-African State has let a private tender taking advantage of the most vulnerable population segments through massive unauthorized deductions from the social grants and therefore undermining the social protection floor. Mesfin Fikre from University of Addis Ababa University and previous IMTFI alum added, “if the pace of M-pesa of Kenya continuous, for sure it will capture the data of almost all Kenyans, which gives it an upper hand in the future digital economy. This is because, having (owning) data means owning a weapon. So, it is high time to consider ‘who owns and control such data?’. Given the participation of foreign companies (investors) in the area, this scales up the problem. For example, in Ethiopia, mobile money related data is captured by foreign companies working in the area (BelCash and M-Birr).”

Manuel also warned that mobile money was largely becoming a solution for the poor, and expressed concern that African fintech would eventually lead to two solutions—remitting solutions for the poor, and traditional banking and investing for the affluent.

Nnanmdi Oranye (Disrupting Africa), Mario Fernandez (GoSocket), Funmi Arewa (Temple Law)

“The engagement of representatives of industry and academia offered an opportunity to engage with real world contexts within which digital finance technologies are actually used. The contributions by anthropologists (particularly Morvant-Roux and Kusimba) enabled a better understanding of varied on the ground uses and understanding about technologies,” says Olufunmilayo Arewa, Professor at Temple University’s Beasley School of Law and IMTFI Academic Advisory Board member. “Conceptions and uses of digital finance technologies in Africa and elsewhere are complex and multifaceted and constantly changing. A dialogue that includes both industry and academia offers needed insight into technology practices on the ground.”

Ideally more interaction between regulators, innovators, and academics—bringing “the people with power into the conversation”—one could imagine new futures for digital money in Africa that would prevent both the abuse of the data economy and the potential isolation of mobile money and remittance products from broader fintech innovations.

See blogpost 1 here: "Colloquium on ‘Digital Finance in Africa’s Future: Innovations and Implications’"

Photo credit: Riaan de Villiers, acumen publishing solutions

Colloquium on ‘Digital Finance in Africa’s Future: Innovations and Implications’

by Lena Gronbach and Prof. John Sharp

An international Colloquium entitled ‘Digital Finance in Africa’s Future: Innovations and Implications’ was held in Johannesburg, South Africa, on 22-26 October 2018.

Opening Keynote: Mr. Trevor Manuel

Organised by the Johannesburg Institute for Advanced Study and the Human Economy Research Programme at the University of Pretoria, in association with Disrupting Africa, the colloquium brought together African innovators in the field of digital finance, as well as academics from various disciplines within the humanities, to discuss the latest developments in this increasingly important field.

The participants were drawn from a variety of academic institutions and FinTech companies, including the University of Geneva, the University of Addis Ababa, The Institute for Money, Technology & Financial Inclusion (IMTFI), Temple University, and the American University, as well as MFS Africa, eTranzact, Creditable, Wala, Inclusivity Solutions and Gosocket. The South African Reserve Bank and the Central Bank of Kenya were represented as well.

The Colloquium had two complementary aims. The first was to give some key players in the field of digital finance in Africa the opportunity to highlight the extent and sophistication of their innovations, and to discuss their successes as well as the obstacles and challenges they face. The second aim was to bring these innovators into conversation with academics with a special interest in the social, political and economic implications of the innovations in question.

South Africa’s former Minister of Finance, Mr. Trevor Manuel, opened the colloquium by emphasizing the importance of understanding the social and economic implications of new payment technologies and the need for prudent yet enabling regulation: “We must build on the success of mobile money, where Africa is recognized as a world leader. But much depends on the extent to which existing institutions can respond the demands of rapid, repeated structural and cultural shifts, and, at the same time, drive financial access to better serve all people across Africa.” Further, he acknowledged that “we have to focus on whose interests will best be served by the race to digitalization” – in other words, to consider the social impact of FinTech innovations in addition to their technological feasibility and financial profitability.

Mr. Manuel’s keynote speech led into an open discussion guided by Nnamdi Oranye, FinTech author and founder of Disrupting Africa, and Stephen Mwaura Nduati, former head of the Central Bank of Kenya’s national payment system.

Stephen Mwaura Nduati (former head of the national payments system of the Kenyan Central Bank) and Mesfin Fikre Woldmariam (University of Addis Ababa/ IMTFI alumni)

Eight working sessions took place over the next four days, each consisting of presentations by an innovator and an academic or a regulator, followed by group discussion. The topics included mobile money and digital payments, regulation, agent networks, remittances, G2P transfers, insurance, start-up capital, and the blockchain. While the number of delegates was kept small to allow for in-depth discussion among the delegates, ‘virtual participants’ from across the globe could follow the sessions via a live streaming platform and submit their comments and questions online.

The consensus that emerged from the lively and highly interactive discussions – frequently extending beyond the allocated time slots – was that there is a strong need for innovators, regulators and academics to engage in regular and interdisciplinary debate. While most innovators are aware that the technological feasibility of an invention does not guarantee that it will be socially beneficial, they do not always have the expertise to consider the wider implications of their technological prowess. And while humanities researchers can provide these insights, they do not always fully understand the technological complexity involved or the financial and regulatory challenges faced by innovators. Finally, regulators need to balance the interests of governments, banks, and FinTech start-ups with broader concerns about social and economic development. This difficult task requires insights into both the technological and the social implications of FinTech innovations and new financial products.

As one of the delegates put it: “Every innovator in Africa should have a Humanities scholar, such as an anthropologist, alongside them for the journey. The insights that emerged when we brought innovators and academics together were exceptional and far exceeded anything we could have imagined.”

Nnamdi Oranye, founder of Disrupting Africa

Other noteworthy points made by the delegates included the need to incorporate FinTech-related topics into academic curricula in order to prepare students for their future in a digital and globally connected world in the context of the Fourth Industrial Revolution. Further, the participants emphasized the need for a focused, interdisciplinary research agenda that explores both the technological and the social implications of FinTech innovations in different geographic, cultural and regulatory settings.

With these goals in mind, the organizers would like to encourage individuals, companies and institutions with an interest in these issues to join our emerging network of scholars, innovators and regulators (contact details below). The highly successful format of this Colloquium lends itself to replication in other parts of the world where innovations such as mobile money have already had a transformative impact or will do so in the near future.

From left to right, back row: Mari-Lise du Preez (i2i), Olufunmilayo Arewa (Temple University), Ubuhle Zwane (MFS Africa), Sean Maliehe (UP), John Sharp (UP), Dare Okoudjou (MFS Africa), Peter Vale (JIAS), Stephen Mwaura Nduati (FinTech consultant), Sechaba Ngwenya (Creditable), Nnamdi Oranye (Disrupting Africa), Solène Morvant-Roux (University of Geneva). Front row: Observer, Hennie Bester (Cenfri), Sibel Kusimba (American University), Lena Gronbach (UP), Marc Wegerif (UP), Mario Fernandez (Gosocket), Mesfin Fikre Woldmariam (University of Addis Ababa).  

The detailed deliberations of the Colloquium will appear in the form of a conference report in early 2019. Recordings of the sessions and the opening event are now available here. Regular updates on the progress of this emerging project will be made available on the conference website.

Read up on conference insights from IMTFI alums Sibel Kusimba and Solène Morvant-Roux: "Academics, Innovators and Regulators at 'Digital Finance in Africa’s Future."

Authors:
Lena Gronbach, Researcher/Administrator: The Human Economy Research Project (Lena.gronbach@up.ac.za)

Prof. John Sharp, Programme Director: The Human Economy Research Project (John.sharp@up.ac.za)

Photo credit: Riaan de Villiers, acumen publishing solutions

Can financial inclusion be synonymous with financial justice and equity?

In IMTFI's PERSPECTIVES blog series, IMTFI’s International Board members and affiliated researchers take on the definition of financial inclusion. This series aims to foster an open dialogue on issues around money, technology, and financial inclusion for the world’s poor. Individual contributions reflect contributors' own reflections on recent events based on their research and areas of expertise. The topic of financial inclusion will conclude with a capstone white paper by IMTFI titled "Mobile Money: The First Decade."

By Stephen C. Rea, IMTFI Assistant Researcher

“In theory, every theory is great, but in practice, not every theory works.”
– Marcel Kitissou, University of Albany

From April 21st to the 22nd, Cornell University’s Institute for African Development and the Cornell International Institute for Food, Agriculture and Development sponsored a symposium titled “Mobile Money, Financial Inclusion, and Development in Africa.” IMTFI researcher Ndunge Kiiti was one of the event’s organizers, and IMTFI was a co-sponsor. The symposium presented an opportunity for academics and development experts to come together and discuss the current state of mobile money in Africa, its effects on the continent’s financial development thus far, and some of the obstacles and tensions that have arisen around financial inclusion. It also afforded a reunion of sorts for a number of IMTFI-affiliated researchers. In this blog post, I will focus on their presentations and the concluding discussion, both of which produced some sobering critiques of financial inclusion as an agenda for international development.

Sibel Kusimba, Rahel Diro, Belete Temesgen
Social and Economic Impact of Mobile Technology panel

Social networks and mobile money in Kenya

I arrived on the 22nd just in time to catch IMTFI researcher Sibel Kusimba’s presentation, titled “Digital Fundraising and Mobile Finance in Kenya,” on the Social and Economic Impact of Mobile Technology panel. Kusimba’s research has time and again reaffirmed an important lesson that often gets lost in the hype about subscription rates and transaction volumes: Mobile money services are most successful when they complement preexisting networks of social obligation. M-Pesa, which has become the “gold standard” for mobile money in its first decade of existence, has succeeded in large part because it operates through a densely intertwined social infrastructure that predates its deployment. However, as Kusimba pointed out,

Kenyan social networks are also variable, with some more persistent over the long term than others. Age, gender, and kinship are all contributing factors to the warp and woof of these networks, as money circulates through matrilineal sibling ties and women often act as arbiters of distribution. But personality and charisma are also crucial elements, especially for becoming a node or “hub” in a social network. Kusimba noted that maintaining one’s status as a hub requires considerable “relational work,” which in turn opens up additional opportunities for more relational work. Moreover, different network ties are useful for different sorts of transactions (e.g. emergency loans vs. money transfer), and so individual nodes in a network are vehicles not only for payments, but also can become small lenders themselves. Kusimba’s research demonstrates how M-Shwari and M-Changa— microcredit and fundraising apps, respectively, that ride on M-Pesa’s rails—afford new means of articulating relational work. M-Changa, which makes it possible for fundraisers to monitor each other’s activities, complements relationships built on trust in these social networks, acting like what IMTFI Director Bill Maurer calls a “distributed ledger” that works in a similar manner to the fact-checking functions in blockchain currencies. (Maurer kicked off IAD's symposium earlier in the week with his talk, “The Problems of Cash and the Perils of Cashlessness: Researching Mobile Money and Payment Infrastructure after M-Pesa" interview can be found here.)

Mobile money uptake in Ghana – one size doesn't fit all

After lunch, an unofficial “IMTFI panel,” titled Mobile Money and Remittances—Lessons in and Beyond Africa, featured IMTFI researchers Vivian Afi Dzokoto and Ishita Ghosh as well as former IMTFI postdoctoral scholar Ivan Small discussing mobile money research in global context. Dzokoto’s presentation, “Mobile Money in Ghana: Past, Present and Future,” raised an important contrast to Kusimba’s research, and in so doing reiterated the reality of “one size doesn’t fit all” that has confounded mobile money service providers. Ghana shares many similarities with Kenya when it comes to GDP PPP, share of the population who are unbanked, and widespread access to mobile phones. However, development experts and mobile network operators alike have lamented mobile money’s relatively slow adoption in Ghana when compared to its East African counterpart. In her talk, Dzokoto highlighted several key differences between Ghana and Kenya that help to explain why mobile money has failed to scale as quickly as some would have hoped. First, differences in immigration patterns: Whereas migration from rural villages to cities and the remittance corridors that followed helped to propel M-Pesa’s adoption in Kenya, these trends did not and do not exist in Ghana to the same degree. Second, the regulatory environment: the Central Bank of Kenya’s early embrace of mobile money and willingness to work with Safaricom and brick-and-mortar banks to create an enabling environment was a fundamental condition of M-Pesa's possibility. Ghana is a good counterexample of what happens when banks see mobile money as competition instead of as an opportunity for collaboration with telcos. The Ghanaian public also has very little trust in mobile network operators, in part because of network outages and infrastructural shortcomings.

Dr. Vivian Dzokoto

Education and outreach have been lacking in Ghana, too, with very few of Dzokoto’s respondents reporting that they knew how to use mobile money or had any sense of why it might be useful for them to do so. Finally, there is the fact that Ghanaians love cash and see little reason to use mobile money when cash is an option. Building on research that she has been involved with for nearly a decade, Dzokoto explained that the cedi’s redenomination in 2007 ended up incentivizing the use of cash and disincentivizing adoption of mobile money; since Ghanaians no longer had to carry around large piles of cash for even basic transactions, one of mobile money’s potential advantages—i.e. a more secure, more convenient mode of value transfer—was essentially obviated. All of these factors have combined to make mobile money an “option of last resort” in Ghana, used primarily for emergencies and remittances rather than day-to-day transactions.


Remittance models in Southeast Asia

Ivan Small’s presentation, “Remittance Technology Models: African Innovations for Southeast Asia?”, considered how the lessons gained from mobile money services in Africa might inform their deployments in Southeast Asia, specifically in Laos and Vietnam. As noted above, remittances and remittance corridors have been instrumental in the adoption of mobile money in places like Kenya. Small argued that the focus on harnessing remittances for development illuminates a few interesting points. First, development discourses have shifted from seeing migration primarily as a negative (e.g. anxieties about “brain drain”) to seeing it as a positive. Moreover, development experts—especially those working in and around financial inclusion—have come to understand internal migration and domestic remittances as potentially more significant than international ones. At the same time, since the early 2000s, anti-money laundering and counter-financing of terrorism initiatives have brought greater regulatory and public attention to remittances, for better and for worse. If remittances are so important to the success or failure of mobile money, then it is imperative to understand the specific contours of remittance practices in a given environment. As Small pointed out, local cultural ecologies and monetary repertoires influence adoption of new services like mobile money and affect financial practices in often unexpected ways. Uptake depends not only on local savings and transfer behaviors, but also on trust in networks, both social and technical; for example, the relative instability and unavailability of electricity in Laos has proven to be a challenge for mobile money. Furthermore, material liquidity continues to be prevalent throughout Southeast Asia because of long histories of conflict and political instability.

Preference for in-person transactions by the urban poor in Uganda and India

In her talk, “Informal Loans and the Mobile Phone: Glimpses into the Coping Strategies of the Urban Poor in Uganda and India,” Ishita Ghosh compared research on lending practices and strategies in East Africa and on the Indian subcontinent. She raised a deceptively simple research question that has profound implications: when the option of using mobile money for securing loans exists, why aren’t people calling upon their distant social networks and instead are maintaining their proximate networks?

The answer, she argued, is because in both Uganda and India there are important symbolic significances entailed by in-person transactions that make them preferable alternatives. Social etiquette matters; asking for a loan through a mediating technology like a mobile phone is difficult for many people because it does not afford the same opportunities to perform self-effacement and gratitude as a face-to-face interaction. Thus, reducing transaction fees for mobile money transfers and making interest-free loans available ultimately do not matter if the underlying social norms that influence financial behavior go unaddressed.

Moving forward – Financial Inclusion or Financial Justice?

The symposium’s final panel, Perspectives, Potentials, and Promises—What Next?, was moderated by IMTFI researcher Ndunge Kiiti, and featured Willene Johnson, former U.S. Executive Director of the African Development Bank; Melita Sawyer from Tufts University’s Fletcher Leadership Program in Financial Inclusion; Lourdes Casanova, Director of the Emerging Markets Institute; and Edward Mabaya, Senior Research Associate in Cornell’s Charles H. Dyson School of Applied Economics and Management. In her opening remarks, Kiiti noted three potential threads to think about moving forward. First, research has made it clear that in order for mobile money to flourish, stakeholders such as telcos, banks, and regulators need to work together, and so figuring out how best to facilitate their alignment will be crucial. Second, when looking at new entrants into the mobile money space like Alibaba’s Alipay, are services like M-Pesa becoming "backwards" before they are even over? In other words, trying to replicate M-Pesa outside of Kenya and simply hoping for the best clearly isn’t working, so what best practices should mobile money providers adopt in order to remain innovative, not to mention effective? Third, we have learned over and over again just how important remittances are not only for mobile money, but more importantly to the financial practices of the unbanked, and so one practical step that must be taken is reducing the price of remitting money, both domestically and transnationally.

A general sense of dissatisfaction with the current direction of financial inclusion pervaded many of the audience’s questions for the panelists. Mabaya offered this pithy reminder for those excited by the promise of so-called “disruptive innovation”: “It’s easy to get carried away by the

technologies, but they’re only as useful as the problems they solve.” The main problems that the panelists and audience members identified were twofold. First, there is clearly a need to develop a framework that can facilitate strategic partnerships among businesses, governments, development agencies, and, of course, the financially excluded. But who is best equipped to take the lead? The consensus was that it depends upon the problem at the time, and that like mobile money, one solution will not work everywhere or for every situation. Everyone agreed, however, that governments need to be more involved in helping to bridge disputes among banks, mobile network operators, and fintech innovators. Government regulators in particular are in the unique position to demand that financial practices be unbundled from the big banks. But at the same time, none of these interest groups can try to dominate the others.

The second problem, which builds upon the first, was well articulated in a comment from the audience: What do banks, insurance companies, and mobile network operators all have in common? They have all been deemed “too big to fail,” and thus enjoy subsidization by governments and aid organizations that allow them access to the poor in the name of “inclusion.” What are the distributional consequences of this? If the point of financial inclusion is making financial services more available, accessible, and affordable for marginalized social groups, can we honestly say that this has been the outcome, or are we simply propping up old vulnerabilities and creating new ones in the process? As Kusimba raised in her talk and the panelists echoed in their remarks, what does finance mean for someone living on less than $2 per day? Can we assume that traditional ways of approaching finance informed by centuries of banking practices are appropriate or even desirable for the financially excluded?

A larger question that grows out of these critiques is whether or not financial inclusion, as presently articulated, can be synonymous with financial justice and equity. And if so, can mobile money contribute to improving financial justice, or will it only perpetuate the same inequalities that many hoped that it would help solve? Over the next few weeks, the IMTFI blog's PERSPECTIVES series will feature reports from a number of conferences where participants have grappled with these same questions.

Photo Credits: Ndunge Kiiti

Advancing gender equality with mobile money - conferencing in Tanzania

By IMTFI Fellow Milcah Mulu-Mutuku (Egerton University, Kenya)

Fig 1: Gender Inequality Source:
http://www.chronicle.co.zw/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/gender.jpg

Gender inequality continues to be a defining feature in contemporary societies, especially in emerging economies. Despite great transformations in gender dynamics, there still exist glaring disparities between men and women in various aspects of life, ranging from students’ enrollment in institutions of higher learning to leadership positions in these institutions; from accessing job opportunities to power relations in the office space; and from interactions at household and community levels to participation in decision making arenas. On average, men are better positioned in this pecking order than women (UNDP, 2013).

Fig 2: Conference banner at DUCE Gate

The Dar es Salaam University College of Education (DUCE), a constituent college of the University of Dar es Salaam, organised the 1st International Conference on Gender Issues in Higher Learning Institutions on April 27-28, 2017 (view book of abstracts here), culminating with a visit to Mikumi National Park on April 29, in order to “explore and reflect on gender issues and on how best to redress them in the context of higher learning institutions with the aim of realizing human rights and gender equality as speculated in various national and international instruments.” Framed by the theme ‘Equity and Equality for All,’ the conference brought together over 100 attendees from over 20 countries. The inauguration speech was delivered by the Minister for Health, Community Development, Gender, Elderly and Children, Hon. Ummy Mwalimu (Fig. 3-Front row, center seated) on behalf of the Vice President of the United Republic of Tanzania, Hon. Samia Suluhu Hassan. This is an indication of the importance attached to this event by the Tanzanian government. The Ministry headed by Hon. U. Mwalimu has a directorate that is in charge of all gender equality related matters in Tanzania, making her the appropriate representative of the Vice President at this conference.

Fig. 3: Hon. Ummy Mwalimu (center seated) with other dignitaries,
keynote speakers, and a section of paper presenters (courtesy of DUCE)

Six keynote speeches were delivered, and 45 oral and four poster presentations were made. Presentations covered a wide range of topics, all touching upon gender issues. I had the opportunity of presenting a paper co-authored with Castro Gichuki* entitled, “Mobile money and financial inclusion in emerging economies: a strategy of addressing gender disparities in control of financial resources.” The paper advocated for use of technology in addressing gender disparities, and was based on a larger project funded by the Institute for Money, Technology and Financial Inclusion (IMTFI) of the University of California at Irvine that aimed to explore the influence of mobile money on women micro-entrepreneurs’ control of productive resources. Data were collected in 2016 using mixed methods, including questionnaires, object-centered focus group discussions, and in-depth interviews.

Control over productive resources and especially finances is culturally a gendered issue in favour of men in many emerging economies.

Fig. 4: Making a presentation (courtesy of DUC)

This has a negative impact on women’s economic activities, thus necessitating a search for strategies with the potential to remedy the situation. Difficulties associated with fighting gender disparities stem from the reality that these disparities are reinforced by some deeply held cultural practices and beliefs. Culture defines ‘codes of conduct’ among those who share cultural ties. Since it is socially transmitted, people who interact regularly share unwritten rules that govern life (Daher, 2012). These are not issues taught in school or through any education system; people inherently know and understand them through socialisation, shaping their way of thinking, behaving and expectations of others. Needless to say then, strategies that have the potential of eliminating or minimising gender disparities are those that are responsive to the culture of the people, and that can be easily integrated into existing social arrangements rather than conflicting openly with deep held beliefs and practices.

Considering technological progression and what it has achieved historically, it may hold the key to unlocking the dilemma of culturally reinforced gender biases and the mindsets that perpetuate them. The term ‘technology’ elicits thoughts of tools and instruments for enhancing human performance, shaping nature, and meeting human needs, and the accompanying knowledge about their use. A third component of technology that is not talked about as much is culture. As Vergragt puts it, “Use of technology is learnt, interpreted, and given meaning in everyday life” (2006:2). If found acceptable, technology is adopted and assimilated into the lives of people, slowly becoming part of their culture. Ask Kenyans today, and they wonder how they ever survived without M-Pesa! Why? Because the technology has become so entrenched in their lives that it has become part of their culture.

Once a particular technology has been accepted as a way of life, the oppressed or the disadvantaged in society can then use it to their advantage. A case in point is the ingenuity of women micro-entrepreneurs in the use of mobile money to gain control over business finances without conflicting with their husbands. We found in our study that women micro-entrepreneurs whose husbands had a tendency of interfering with business finances transacted secretly using mobile money services. These women paid for services and goods using M-Pesa and deposited money into their savings accounts secretly. Messages from the mobile money service providers were deleted immediately after the transaction to erase any evidence. This way husbands did not know, and could not keep track of, how much money the business was transacting. This was done to safeguard business money against misuse, a mission impossible for those transacting with cash. This then makes technology progression a crucial tool in breaking the gender disparity cycle.

Conference attendees were fascinated with the use of object-centered focus group discussions as a technique of data collection and were interested in understanding it better. This is a technique we used to stimulate conversations around the difficult topics of personal financial practices and culture. We used charts to prompt participants to think through their financial practices and to discuss their level of control over productive resources and the influence mobile money services had on their control and decision-making processes regarding the resources (for more information on this subject, please see our IMTFI blog: Object-Centered Focus Group Discussions: Stimulating Conversations on Mobile Money Practices and Culture.

Dr. Susan Murphy, one of the keynote speakers, led the conference participants in exploring the role of education in creating gender awareness and transformation. The unparalleled capacity of institutions of higher learning to act as spaces for transformation through a focus on excellence, critical thinking, and constructive engagement was acknowledged. These institutions have the opportunity to lead transformative thinking on gender identities and the social constructions of masculinities and femininities, a point affirmed by Dr. Su-mung Khoo, another keynote speaker. Nonetheless these institutions hold dominant biases and discriminatory perspectives specific to their communities that tilt the scales toward exclusivity.

As observed by Prof. Anne Looney, Prof. Anne Ferguson, and Dr. Amy Jamison (other keynote speakers), gender inequality in institutions of higher learning is an internationally observed phenomenon, with key leadership and academic positions being held by proportionately more men than women. Prof. Looney called it ‘a crisis of justice and a crisis of quality perpetuated by societal cultures and systems.’ We noted that nations have good intentions to create equal opportunities for both men and women, and even legislation is in place to that effect. However, in most cases these intentions are not translated into practice due to deep rooted biases and stereotypes. Therefore, Prof. Ruth Meena implored participants to change the narrative from barriers, challenges, and limitations to promoting enablers of gender equality. Some enablers that were identified included commitments by governments, roles played by gender and human rights activists, and technology.

Fig. 5: Paper presentation session in breakaway room TPC 106
 (courtesy of DUCE)

On the use of technology as a tool for addressing gender disparities, Dr. Conor Buggy pointed to the ‘blindness to gender’ in anonymized online teaching and assessment which allows all students to achieve their learning outcome without unconscious bias or prejudice from fellow students and teachers. This concurred with our assertion that mobile money technology progression is an asset, especially for women micro-entrepreneurs, for gaining control over financial resources and, to some extent, equalizing the playing field between men and women. Mobile money enhances privacy and autonomy of financial transactions due to its invisibility compared to cash, meaning women are able to transact without conflicting with male relatives who may hold the belief that control over financial resources is a preserve for men (Donovan, 2012). As society ‘drags its feet’ in addressing gender biases, women can continue providing decent meals for their families in an environment of peace afforded by mobile money technology.

References

Daher, M (2012). Cultural beliefs and values in cancer patients. Annals of Oncology, vol. 23(3). Pp. 66-69.

Donovan, K. (2012). Mobile money for financial inclusion. In T. Kelly and C. Rossotto (Eds.), Information and Communication for Development, pp. 61–73. Washington, DC: World Bank.

UNDP (2013). Humanity Divided: Confronting Inequality in Developing Countries, available at: http://www.refworld.org/docid/52fcc3fe4.html [accessed 18 July 2017].

Vergragt, P. J. (2006). How Technology Could Contribute to a Sustainable World. GTI Paper Series Frontiers of a Great Transition No. 8, Tellus Institute, Boston MA.


Read about her experience presenting at the Making Markets Matter Executive Training Program (May 2017).

Join us! Register for the INSIGHT & IMPACT - IMTFI Conference April 20-21, 2016

IMTFI is excited to bring this cohort of researchers to UC Irvine to present their preliminary findings looking at the experiences on the ground of existing, traditional money systems and financial practices, as well as the potential and real impact of new technologies in providing access to finance for the world's poor.

We are welcoming scholars worldwide ranging from Burkino Faso, Pakistan, Philippines, and Zimbabwe as well as moderators and attendees from the philanthropic, industry, and policy-making sectors -- view full selection below.

                                                         
                       

Day 1: Wednesday, April 20
8:15am  Check-in and Registration
8:45am  Welcome and Introductions by Director Bill Maurer
9:00–10:30am  Session 1: The Sharing Economy? Women and Girls and their Ties and Tensions, Discussant: Erin McDonald, Women's World Banking

Olufunmilayo B. Arewa, UC Irvine

• "To Send or to Carry? Gendered Evaluations of Formal and Informal Remittance Practices in Migrant-Origin Villages in Central Java, Indonesia" by Carol Chan, University of Pittsburgh
• “Generational Tensions in the Uptake of Digital Financial Services: Adolescent Girls and Adults in Nigeria" by Jude Kenechi Onyima, Nnamdi Azikiwe University
• “Group versus Individual Strategies: Dynamic Social Networks of Mobile Money among Unbanked Women in Western Kenya" by Sibel Kusimba, American University

11:00am-12:30pm  Session 2: Ecologies in Crisis: Transferring, Converting and Marketing Value in Unstable Times, Discussant: Rosa Akbari, International Rescue Committee (IRC)

• “Managing, negotiating, and converting 'currency' in daily life in a multicurrency environment of Zimbabwe" by Innocent Tonderai Mahiya, Women's University in Africa, and Simbarashe Gukurume, University of Cape Town
• “Financial Security: Laborers’ Transfer of Value from Karachi’s Marketplaces to Tribal War Zones in Pakistan" by Noman Baig, Habib University
• “Strange Intersections: Humans, Technology and Disaster in a Himalayan Valley" (Nepal) by Kabir Mansingh Heimsath, Lewis & Clark College

2:00-3:30pm  Session 3: Accessories to Technology: Mobile Financial Services, Risk and Insurance, Discussant: Ananya Roy, UCLA Luskin

• “Assessing the Need and Feasibility for Using Pre-Paid Card Technology in Delivering Added Services to Micro Finance Customers in Selected Regions of Uttar Pradesh" (India) by Debashis Acharya,  University of Hyderabad and Tapas Kumar Parida, State Bank of India
• “The Curious Case of Mobile Micro-insurance in South Africa: A View from Above and Below" (South Africa) by Christopher Paek, London School of Economics 
• “Sports Betting in Uganda: Causes and Consequences" by Sylvan Herskowitz, UC Berkeley

4:00-5:30pm IMTFI's X Factor: Applying and Translating Innovative Research - Alumni Panel, Discussant: Divine Fuh, University of Cape Town

• "How Research Can Make a Difference Locally: The Case of Overseas Remittances in the Philippines" by Jeremaiah Opiniano
• "Translating Research into Product Design:  Interactive and Innovative Financial Education Modules to Improve the Financial Behavior of Targeted Populations in India" by Deepti KC
• "Juggling Currencies in Transborder Contexts: Mexico/US" by Magdalena Villareal

Day 2: Thursday, April 21
8:30am  Check-in and Registration
9:00-10:30am  Session 4: In _____We Trust: The Contingencies of Social and Financial Protection, Discussant: Kate McKee, Consultative Group to Assist the Poor (CGAP)

• “The role of mobile money in social protection networks in two rural areas of Colombia" by Maria Elisa Balen and Andrea Beltrán, Universidad Externado de Colombia
• “Dimensions of Electronic fraud and Governance of Trust in Nigeria’s Cashless Ecosystem" by Oludayo Tade, University of Ibadan and Oluwatosin Adeniyi, University of Ibadan
• “Intermediaries, Cash Economies, and Technological Change in Myanmar and India" by Janaki Srinivasan, International Institute of Information Technology Bangalore (IIITB)  and Elisa Oreglia, University of London

11:00am-12:30pm  Session 5: Small Size Big Impact? Management of Financial Opportunities and Constraints by Micro-entrepreneurs and Small Merchants, Discussant: Olumide Abimbola, Max Planck Institute for Social Anthropology

• “Influence of Mobile Money on Control of Productive Resources Among Women Micro Entrepreneurs Participating in Table Banking - Nakuru, Kenya" by Milcah Wavinya Mulu-Mutuku, Egerton University and Castro Ngumbu Gichuki, Egerton University
• “Informal Loan Trap: Bombay 5-6 and its Effect on Tacloban Micro-entrepreneurs" (Philippines) by Rosalita M. Dula and Marilou Pelenio Grego, Eastern Visayas State University
• “Assessing Unmet Needs of Small Merchants in Adopting Digital Payment Systems in Southern Ghana" by Clement Adamba, University of Ghana

2:00-3:30pm  Session 6: Up(S)takes of New Financial Tools and Technologies, Discussant: Sonia Arenaza, Better Than Cash Alliance, UNCDF

• “Separate self, interdependent self and new financial technologies - Lessons from rural southern India" by Venkatasubramanian Govindan, French Institute of Pondicherry 
• “Cross-border Transfers as a Strategic Tool to Promote the Diffusion of Mobile Money in Rural Areas. The Case of Burkinabe Diaspora Living in Ivory Coast" by Solène Morvant-Roux, Univesity of Geneva, Simon Barussaud, University of Geneva and Dieudonné Ilboudo, National Centre of Scientific and Technological Research in Ouagadougou (CNRST/INERA)

4:00-4:30 Keynote Address - "Buckle up! An Eclectic Journey of Mobile Money in Kenya (and Beyond) - Insights & Impacts of Research"
                 by Ndunge Kiiti, Visiting Professor, CIIFAD, Cornell University

4:30-5:00pm  Closing Remarks - Director Bill Maurer

Preview IMTFI's awarded research projects 2015-2016                    

IMTFI featured on Digital Media and Learning Blog

IMTFI resident blogger, Liz Losh, has been super-busy over the holiday break providing in-depth and fascinating summaries of the findings presented at both days of our annual conference. Her work is reaching a wide audience across the twittersphere under the handle @lizlosh and she has posted about the conference on the Digital Media and Learning Blog. It is well worth a read!

"The fact that a cellular telephone can transmit the value of a particular currency from one party to another may be increasingly obvious, given the rise of specialized digital money services in the United States, such as Square or Apple Pay. Around the world, mobile money does much more than signal access to disposable income or brand name consumer electronics; it can quite literally ensure survival for people on the bottom of the economic pyramid..."