South African banks need to do more to ensure financial inclusion

Financial inclusion is broadly defined as the ability of people to access a range of affordable financial services.
Image: Frédéric Soltan/Corbis via Getty Images

An analysis of financial inclusion in South Africa shows that affordability limits poor households’ access to formal financial services. In our study, which looked at people’s use of financial goods and services between 2008 and 2015, we found that there was a general increase in use. But this was severely skewed to households with higher incomes.>

Financial inclusion is broadly defined as the ability of people to access a range of affordable financial services. Among these are bank and savings accounts, loans and insurance products. Households that are financially excluded can’t take part in various forms of savings or wealth accumulation. These range from paying bills via direct debit to gaining favourable forms of credit.

The key policy implication of our findings is that more financial services should target low-income households. It should be a priority, given the high rate of exclusion among the poor.

Measuring use based on income

In general, there are four dimensions of financial inclusion: access, usage, quality and welfare. In our study, we focus on usage.

The financial services available in South Africa range from the well-known ones such as bank accounts and credit cards to the less well known ones such as hire purchase agreements and loans with “mashonisa” (loan sharks). In the South African context, a bank account remains the most used financial service. The number of unbanked adult individuals decreased from 17 million to 14 million between 2003 and 2017.

Our study is the first to thoroughly investigate the data from the National Income Dynamics Study. This study interviews the same households (if possible) every two years to track the changes in their income and non-income welfare over time.

One standout feature of the study is that it asks household heads about their usage of 14 financial services.

With the aid of some statistical techniques, we developed an aggregate financial usage index to investigate the profile of people who were comprehensively financially included.

What we found

The study found that the increased use of financial products and services was mostly associated with higher income households. The other characteristics of individuals and households that showed higher usage of financial services were: middle-aged, male, white, more educated, urban residents in Western Cape and Gauteng provinces. They came from bigger households with more employed members.

The likelihood of complete financial exclusion was more prevalent in poor rural households living in the Eastern Cape, KwaZulu-Natal and Limpopo provinces. Almost invariably, these households were made up of black people. The study also found that households with low real per capita income and fewer employed members were associated with greater likelihood of financial exclusion. Households bigger in size and headed by middle-aged people were associated with significantly higher financial inclusion and lower likelihood of complete financial exclusion.

The table below presents the proportion of households with at least one adult member having some form of the observed financial services. The results indicate that there has been an increase in the use of most financial services between waves 1 (2008) and 4 (2014/2015). In particular, the proportion of households that have at least one member with a bank account increased from almost 57% in wave 1 (2008) to over 78% by wave 4 (2014/2015), while those with a personal loan from a bank nearly doubled (8.63% to 16.41%) between the first (2008) and last waves (2014/2015).

Proportion of households with at least one adult having some form of financial services.
Author supplied

We also considered variables from informal financial sources, such as loans from mashonisa (loan sharks), which have increased from 1.69% in wave 1 to 2.97% in wave 4, and loans from a family member, friend or employer, which increased from less than 2.85% to 8.76%. The use of other important services, such as hire purchase agreements, store cards and pension or retirement annuity plans, also increased across the four waves. There is a decrease in the use of some of the major financial services. For example, households where at least one member reported to have a home loan or bond were at 8.63% in wave 1 and gradually declined over the years, ending up at 5.68% by wave 4. There was also a slight decline in study loans and vehicle finance.

One finance source that particularly stands out is the use of credit cards, which decreased from 12.5% (wave 1) to 9.74% (wave 4).

In all four waves, households that were regarded as poor had relatively lower rates of use of each source of finance.

Poor households had relatively lower rates of use.

The figure below shows the proportion of households that were completely financially excluded (they didn’t have any of the 14 sources of finance). It more than halved between the first (36.77%) and fourth (16.40%) waves.

Proportion of households completely financially excluded.

What next?

Supporting alternative, black finance access and usage is one possibility. This may range from low-cost bank accounts and products to advanced technologies that deliver financial services to the excluded in a swift, affordable and efficient manner.

Other countries can be used as a case study.

For instance, in India, the government and private providers have worked together to grow access to financial products such as insurance at a lower cost. The Indian government founded a social security fund that finances insurance companies to subsidise insurance premium policies offered to poorer households. This initiative has provided over two million poor Indians with access to insurance policies.

The promotion of money pools is also another option. A study conducted from five Caribbean countries showed that money pools, where poor people pool their money and create collective banks, helped people save. In Cameroon, the practice of lending and saving through kinship and financial networks was found to be more trusted than the mainstream.

This clearly calls for a proactive financial system that promotes such channels and one that is trusted by the general public, especially low-income earners.

But financial inclusion initiatives directed at the poor should be closely monitored. This is because they don’t always have a positive impact, particularly on poor people.The Conversation

Velenkosini Matsebula, is a lecturer, Economics, University of the Western Cape and Derek Yu, is a professor, Economics, University of the Western Cape

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.


Sort by:
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Top voted

You must be signed in to comment.


Private companies do not have a responsibility to ensure people have financial inclusion. Government has the responsibility to stop wasting money and corruption in order to drive the country forward. That will in and of itself create an environment of financial inclusion. Demanding banks to do more to make sure poor people are included in the economy is a cop out.

Banks are often blamed for such things as high bank charges (of various types). I can understand this.

However, lending has existed around the world in various forms for thousands of years, and there are generally accepted financial models that determine the risk factor for each client’s situation.

‘Inclusivity’ in the South African context sounds more like a racial epithet than a financial(ly viable) one.

Clearly, all financial institutions want to make as much money as possible. If they find it viable to lend R100 to someone who earns R1 000 per month, they will do so. Thus it follows, logically, that if they choose to not lend someone (or some entity) money, then they have deemed that situation to be financially unviable.

And that’s it in a nutshell.

Capitec bank included the poor very nicely and look how it worked out for them.

Measures can be made by both Govt and banks.

Banks can eliminate fees for certain types of accounts, can stop colluding on exchange rates and can be more proactive on preventing corruption (most happening through bank accounts).

Govt can stop corruption, increase regulation against excessive fees and usury, issue more banking licenses and facilitate access through technology.

Private companies do not have a responsibility to ensure people have financial inclusion. Government has the responsibility to stop wasting money and corruption in order to drive the country forward. That will in and of itself create an environment of financial inclusion. Demanding banks to do more to make sure poor people are included in the economy is a cop out.

The locals are not stupid. They have figured out a way to save, that is far superior to any of the alternatives mentioned in this article. That fact does not reflect well on the so-called academics who wrote this article.

Locals don’t need a degree in actuarial science to figure out that funeral cover is the best way to access financial products in South Africa. Locals have the entrepreneurial spirit and they know that South Africa has the third-highest amount of violent deaths per capita among all nations, as well as the most AIDS deaths and among the highest TB and Diabetic deaths on earth. Why open a bank account when your way of life stacks the odds against you? This is why taking out funeral cover is the preferred way to save under South Africans. It is a sure bet and pays out much faster than a boring pension fund. They know their customers and they put their money where they have control over it.

When you take out funeral cover on those people around you, then the local shebeen becomes a hybrid between a slot machine and an ATM over weekends. The odds are much better than at Grand West. You don’t need to be able to read cards. You can simply read the minds and habits of the people you know. No algorithms, statistical analysis, fundamental guesswork, inverted yields or asset swaps. Funeral cover is the best investment for locals by far because they have complete control over their payout ratio and they are in control of the yield curve.

The academics who wrote this article should go for lessons in asset allocation at the nearest taxi rank.

End of comments.





Follow us:

Search Articles:Advanced Search
Click a Company: