Today, most of us use financial technology without thinking. We buy goods and services with our bank cards, phones or even our watches.
But our society has become so normalised to such services that life can be difficult for people who do not – for whatever reason – have access to basic financial services. A basic bank account, for example, is a de-facto requirement for most forms of accommodation, quality jobs, or receiving welfare.
However, globally about 1.7 billion people remain unbanked. This means that they have no access to an account at a mainstream financial institution.
Reasons for being excluded from finance are diverse and include a lack of documentation, a lack of financial literacy, and poverty. These issues persist all around the globe: in the UK, more than one million people remain completely cut off from the financial system, with millions more being only inappropriately served.
Technology-enabled innovation in financial services, also known as fintech, has the potential to address many of the intractable issues related to financial exclusion.
In principle, it can provide a whole new toolkit that could result in new business models, products, and applications that can help tackle these barriers.
But is the excitement of the development community warranted? With many technologies and firms coming of age, it is time to take stock and see whether fintech delivers on its early promise.
A look at the marketplace reveals mixed results. While some innovations have proven to be successful, adoption rates among vulnerable consumers remain low. New research from FinTech Scotland has found, in partnership with experts from academia, government, and the private and third sectors, a number of interesting explanations for why take-up is patchy.
Two under-appreciated barriers that entrepreneurs and policymakers must remain cognisant of in their effort to use financial technologies in socially productive ways are access and trust.
On access, many financially vulnerable consumers lack access to the technologies and devices that are the foundation of most fintech innovations. Even where individuals own mobile or smart phones, there remain hurdles related to broadband availability, network signals, and data poverty that restrict access to online services. These problems are most pronounced in rural (and often deprived) areas.
On trust, disadvantaged groups are often wary of new, data-hungry applications. Products and services that to some seem obviously beneficial can be viewed with suspicion by many potential users. For example, there is substantial mistrust and concern among vulnerable consumers that providing more information to businesses or government agencies could result in them losing money or see their access to public resources further restricted rather than being provided with greater support.
The increasing number of online scams further fuels this mistrust. Many vulnerable user groups generalise that, due to the risk of falling victim to one of these online fraud schemes, all digital services are better avoided. Contradictory expert advice (share your data to get better products versus don’t share any data to avoid being exploited) makes it even harder to judge the legitimacy of fintech solutions.
Vulnerable consumers can often recoil from using fintech services as they struggle to make sense of new product and service offerings. Attempts to “educate” marginalised groups about the benefits of these innovations are often patronising, and the complexity of technological jargon mixed with trite buzzwords have a disengaging effect. A first step towards overcoming these barriers could be a set of normative principles guiding how fintech products are developed with, rather than for, marginalised groups.
Will fintech someday deliver on its promise of enhancing financial inclusion? It remains to be seen. What is clear is that there is still lots of work to do to dispel the reservations many vulnerable consumers have towards financial technology.
Dominic Chalmers is a senior lecturer in entrepreneurship at the University of Glasgow’s Adam Smith Business School
Felix Honecker is a Marie Sklodowska-Curie Early Stage Researcher at the University of Glasgow. His research is part of the EC funded MCSA-ITN Project Legitimation of Newness and Its Impact on EU Agenda for Change, exploring the legitimation of new technologies, business models, and ecosystems in FinTech.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules here