1 of 25

2 of 25

Unpacking Women’s Economic Empowerment Barriers & Opportunities

What works for Women

September 14th, 2022 | 9:00a.m. EDT

Alexandra Fiorillo

Principal

GRID Impact

Hamilton McNutt

COO

Strategic Impact Advisors

Wanza Mbole

Senior Economic Inclusion Advisor, FSD Kenya

Amna Awan

Gender Advisor

Karandaaz

3 of 25

Barriers and Opportunities to Women’s Economic Empowerment through Financial Inclusion

September 2022

4 of 25

4

Project Objectives

By 2030, women will have near ubiquitous (80% adults worldwide, 60% of those who earn <$2 a day), equal access to DFS, and can easily, safely, and confidently use them to manage their complex daily lives and aid in their aspirations, over which they have agency and control.

FSP’s WEE-FI Vision Statement

Project Overview & Key Learnings

Identify and prioritize the most critical and strategic barriers for FSP to tackle in order to advance the WEE-FI vision statement.

Establish a collaborative process and strategy that centers gender, and relevant prioritized barriers throughout FSP’s work and empowers the FSP Team with the tools, information, and support they need to own their role in accelerating achievement of these outcomes.

Determine FSP’s role and priorities to create, curate, or convene assets, conversations, and partnerships to accelerate this work.

Identify and/or refine priority collaboration opportunities across FSP, other Program Strategy Teams, and with existing implementing partners wherever possible to address critical barriers and advance strategic learning agendas.

01

02

03

04

Alex

The goal of this work has been to examine a set of barriers inhibiting women’s access and usage of financial services, determine which barriers are most resonant to different segments of women in different markets, and make recommendations about the kinds of interventions and programs that might help remove, mitigate, or address these barriers so women can have access to and use a range of financial services that will fit their needs. Ultimately, our goal is to remove barriers to women’s economic empowerment in the financial inclusion arena.

A part of our work has been to help ensure the Financial Services for the Poor (FSP) Team at the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF) is focusing on and addressing the right barriers to achieve their WEE-FI 2030 vision and strategic goals, and to understand the opportunities, challenges, available tools, and trade-offs as they set priorities and make new investment, collaboration, and advocacy decisions across the whole team.

5 of 25

5

Project Outputs

We hope these reference materials will support your work in deepening and accelerating gains for women in financial inclusion.

An evidence review of 35 barriers, resulting from a process of mapping barriers to customer segments in FSP’s nine focus countries, and a presentation of the most relevant barriers for each market. This contextualized representation will allow for �a more targeted approach when we consider what opportunities might most accelerate progress to achieving the 2030 WEE-FI vision statement.

A series of evidence-based interventions and programs that have shown success in addressing a range of barriers women face in accessing and using financial services. These exemplar interventions are tagged to the 35 barriers, as well as the FSP focus countries, customer segments, and customer journey phases.�

An introduction to a work-in-progress Diagnostic Tool to be used by FSP Team members and Implementation Partners to determine important barriers to WEE-FI in a specific market.

The Barriers �& Opportunities Analysis

The Enablers & Exemplars Reference Guide

The Diagnostic �Tool

Project Overview & Key Learnings

Alex

The resources created during this Barriers and Opportunities Analysis project are intended for two audiences: members of the FSP team at the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and implementation partners of the FSP team who work on women’s economic empowerment.

The research our team conducted may prove to be a helpful reference resource for implementing partners in that they can triangulate country-specific findings with the large evidence base we compiled.

For implementation partners, we hope the resources produced will provide helpful evidence to inform and support program design decisions. If, as an industry, we can align on relevant and important barriers to women’s economic empowerment in specific markets for specific profiles of customers, we may be more successful in coordinating interventions and making significant change. The exemplars work highlights the incredible work of so many implementation partners to date and also can serve as a meaningful steer for the types of interventions our industry might want to consider prioritizing for women going forward.

6 of 25

6

This became a challenge for several reasons:

Lack of standardized, comparable data to measure and determine the “impact” of singular barriers on WEE outcomes.

The highly contextual nature of women’s experiences with financial services and, thus, the barriers to accessing and using those services.

The diversity of ecosystems, enabling environments, providers, and systems in markets around the world. A “priority” barrier in one country may have already been solved in another market.

As a result, financial inclusion Implementation Partners hesitated to provide feedback and input to a prioritization process.

Originally, we aimed to “prioritize” the barriers to women’s economic empowerment through financial inclusion.

Project Overview & Key Learnings | Process Learnings – Our Approach

7 of 25

7

The general sentiment is that all barriers contribute to an inequitable financial system that makes it difficult for women to access and use services and products in ways that will allow them to achieve economic empowerment.

All barriers are important and play a role in a woman’s lack of ability �and access to choose and use a financial product or service.

Project Overview & Key Learnings | Process Learnings – Our Approach

8 of 25

8

For this reason, we shifted our approach to focus more on building the evidence base for all 35 barriers and then identified which barriers might be most relevant for: specific segments, specific phases of �the customer journey, and �specific markets.

We found some barriers to be relevant to more segments, more customer journey phases, and more country contexts than others. It’s possible that this might make these barriers more relevant to solve given they are pervasive for more women across FSP’s focus countries.

Process Learnings – Our Approach

Alex

At the onset of this research project, we anticipated developing a methodology that would allow our team to prioritize the most critical barriers preventing or impeding women’s economic empowerment. However, through consultative engagements with leading financial inclusion experts and FSP team members, our approach shifted considerably.

Prioritization necessitates making qualified trade-off decisions: X barrier is more important to resolve than Y barrier. In order to make those assertions, we would have needed sufficient data on each individual barrier to be able to compare its effect on similar populations or markets. Because of the nature of research and data in our industry, that was not possible.

Similarly, we were not able to sufficiently compare the impact of a specific barrier in different markets due to (a) a lack of available of data, and (b) the uniqueness of each FSP Focus Country’s market conditions. For example, if one market has great mobile coverage and another has very poor mobile coverage, does that mean that “Internet / mobile connectivity” is more or less of a priority barrier? The need to contextualize the barriers became apparent very quickly in our process. As such, we have developed a Diagnostic Tool to help Program Officers and Implementation Partners determine which barriers might necessitate priority attention.

9 of 25

Identified the barriers that, based on available data, appear to be most relevant for each segment.

Then we determined which segment was largest in each of FSP’s nine Focus Countries. That allowed us to compile a list of the most relevant barriers for each country by largest segment.

We could then look at the specific market conditions and determine if any of those barriers had already been sufficiently addressed or resolved through existing interventions or efforts. This step allowed our team to “de-prioritize” specific barriers that seem to have already been addressed in some material way, leaving us with a list of barriers that are both relevant to the largest customer segment in that market and unresolved or unaddressed by existing efforts.

9

Process Learnings – Contextualizing the Priority Barriers List

As such, we moved away from global prioritization and towards a more contextualized, market-specific approach �to our analysis. We:

01

02

03

10 of 25

10

Ultimately, our intention was to try to help focus efforts in each market:

Can we identify barriers that are relevant and not yet resolved so partners can center their programs and interventions on critical issues facing women?

Process Learnings – Contextualizing the Priority Barriers List

11 of 25

11

Does not own a financial account

and

Has not conducted a basic transaction in the past 12 months

and

Does not have an income stream (from employment or G2P payment)

and / or

Cannot access services (does not have a mobile phone and financial institutions are too far away)

01

Excluded, marginalized

Financial Inclusion Segments

Does not own a financial account

and either

Has conducted a basic transaction in the past 12 months

and / or

Has an income stream (from employment or G2P payment)

and

Can access services (does have a mobile phone and financial institutions are not too far away)

02

Excluded, high potential

Owns a financial account

and

Has not conducted multiple types of advanced transactions in the past 12 months

03

Included, underserved

Owns a financial account

and

Has conducted multiple types of advanced transactions in the past 12 months

04

Included, not underserved

Lower potential for inclusion

Greater potential of inclusion

This represents the original segmentation approach as defined by the FSP Team.

WEE-FI Opportunities & Strategic Recommendations

12 of 25

12

Key barriers for segments 1 & 2 �are many, with a focus on prerequisites, cost, accessibility & information

Phone / SIM ownership

Digital ID

Broader legal constraints (e.g. male signature)

Cost of using DFS (incl. transaction cost)

Perceived and/or lack of money

Basic literacy and numeracy

Digital literacy

Unclear or unavailable info about products / uses

Lack of peers/family/network who use DFS

Distance from bank / FSP / CICO agent

Biases that center men as financial customers

Expectation that men control HH finances

Ambivalence or antagonism towards women’s financial independence

Women’s disproportionate performance of unpaid care work

Lack of female agents

Prerequisites

Cost

Information availability and / or capability

Social Norms

Human resources

Accessibility

Content Learnings

13 of 25

13

While segment 3 faces many of the same barriers as segments 1 �& 2, key differences lie in product & service quality and consumer protection

Digital ID

Broader legal constraints (e.g. male signature)

Lack of credit history (for credit products only)

Cost of using DFS (incl. transaction cost)

Cost of mobile/internet

Basic literacy and numeracy

Digital literacy

Unclear or unavailable info about products / uses

Lack of peers/family/network who use DFS

Biases that center men as financial customers

Expectation that men control HH finances

Ambivalence or antagonism towards women’s financial independence

Women’s disproportionate performance of unpaid care work

Lack of female agents

Distance from bank / FSP / CICO agent

Lack of products that meet women’s needs

Reliability of payments system and network

Lack of products and services that create value

Reliability (and quality of in-person services)

Navigability of user interface of the digital product

Over-charging

Prerequisites

Cost

Information availability and / or capability

Social Norms

Human resources

Accessibility

Product or service quality

Consumer Protection

Content Learnings

14 of 25

14

Global Segmentation Sizing with India

When including data on India, Segment 3 incorporates about 72% of women in India. With the country’s female population equal to 58% of all women across the nine countries, India heavily represents Segment 3 in global segmentation sizing.

Pakistan

Indonesia

India

Bangladesh

Nigeria

Uganda

Tanzania

Kenya

Ethiopia

Segment 1

Segment 2

Segment 3

Segment 4

53%

28%

6%

13%

Sources: Preliminary Mathematica analysis of 2017 Global Findex database data.

Barriers & Opportunities Analysis | FSP Focus Country Analysis

15 of 25

15

Global Segmentation Sizing without India

When temporarily excluding Indian market data, Segment 1 becomes the largest segment. A major contributor to this is the Pakistani market that holds the third largest population of women across the nine countries – 84% of whom fall into Segment 1.

Segment 1

Segment 2

Segment 3

Segment 4

27%

41%

8%

24%

Sources: Preliminary Mathematica analysis of 2017 Global Findex database data and preliminary GRID Impact and SIA analysis.

Pakistan

Indonesia

India

Bangladesh

Nigeria

Uganda

Tanzania

Kenya

Ethiopia

Barriers & Opportunities Analysis | FSP Focus Country Analysis

16 of 25

16

Barrier Prioritization for Kenya

The largest segment represented in Kenya is Segment 3, followed by Segment 4, and Segment 1. Women in Kenya represent a small portion of Segment 2.

Sources: Preliminary Mathematica analysis of 2017 Global Findex database data.

Segment 1

Segment 2

Segment 3

Segment 4

6.58%

15.79%

21.71%

55.92%

Barriers & Opportunities Analysis | FSP Focus Country Analysis

17 of 25

17

Barrier Prioritization for Kenya

Sources: Preliminary Mathematica analysis of 2017 Global Findex database data and preliminary GRID Impact and SIA analysis, Central Bank of Kenya

Barriers that may be more important in Kenya:�

Digital literacy, and Unclear or unavailable info about products/uses: Kenya has struggled with products, like digital credit, and a lack of consumer education on these services. Digital literacy and unclear or unavailable information on uses of products continues to be a need for women in Segment 3 as they explore more sophisticated use cases.

Barriers that may be less important in Kenya:�

Digital/Foundational ID: 77% of women have an account in Kenya, meaning access to ID is likely not a barrier for Segment 3.
Basic numeracy and literacy: Numeracy and literacy are less likely to be barriers for women in Segment 3 as they hold higher levels of education (even higher than those in Segment 4).
Lack of peers/family/network who use DFS: With over 67 million mobile money accounts open in Kenya, the Lack of peers/family/network who use DFS is less of a barrier.

Barriers & Opportunities Analysis | FSP Focus Country Analysis

18 of 25

18

Barrier Prioritization for Pakistan

The largest segment represented in Pakistan is Segment 1, followed by Segments 2 and 3 with close distributions, and Segment 4 with minimal representation.

Sources: Preliminary Mathematica analysis of 2017 Global Findex database data.

Segment 1

Segment 2

Segment 3

Segment 4

9.01%

83.97%

.46%

6.56%

Barriers & Opportunities Analysis | FSP Focus Country Analysis

19 of 25

19

Barrier Prioritization for Pakistan

Sources: Preliminary Mathematica analysis of 2017 Global Findex database data and preliminary GRID Impact and SIA analysis.

Barriers that may be more important in Pakistan:�

Cost of using DFS (incl. transaction cost): 26.7% of women in Segment 1 cited that financial services were too expensive.
Distance from bank/FSP/CICO agent: 23.4% of women in Segment 1 stated there are no institutions nearby suggesting distance is a relevant barrier.
Perceived and/or lack of money: 52.8% of women in Segment 1 stated they do not have enough money to use financial institutions.

Barriers that may be less important in Pakistan:�

There were no barriers that could be deemed less important for women in Segment 1 of Pakistan.

Barriers & Opportunities Analysis | FSP Focus Country Analysis

20 of 25

20

By tagging barriers

to one another, we can understand the nature of interactions between barriers and further prioritize barriers.

Content Learnings – Connected Barriers

Alex

no barrier operates independent of other barriers

One barrier may be a root cause of another barrier or one barrier may exacerbate another barrier

By tagging barriers to one another, we were able to build a map of barrier connections in order to understand the nature of interactions between barriers. This Barriers Map has helped us to determine which barriers hold influence over other barriers.

Our hypothesis being that if we can address the barriers at the center of the cluster, we can likely influence connected barriers through both direct and indirect means.

For example, we know that Digital Literacy is a nodal barrier, connected to 12 other barriers. If we can identify opportunities and solutions to improve women’s digital literacy that also takes into account connected barriers such as basic literacy and numeracy, navigability of user interface of the digital product, and non-transparent fee structure / hidden costs, we might be able to reduce the impact of multiple barriers through one powerful intervention or solution. Using the connected barriers to inform opportunity identification and intervention design could help address more challenges in the ecosystem.

One insight became clear and important: no barrier operates independent of other barriers.

In fact, the barriers are incredibly interconnected. One barrier may be a root cause of another barrier (e.g. “broader legal constraints” may be the reason it is difficult for women to obtain a “foundational / digital ID”) or one barrier may exacerbate another barrier (e.g. challenges with “digital literacy” may make “navigability of user interface of the digital product” more difficult).

By tagging barriers to one another, we were able to build a map of barrier connections in order to understand the nature of interactions between barriers. This Barriers Map has helped us to determine which barriers hold influence over other barriers.

These “clusters” or “nodes” provide clear opportunities for the financial inclusion industry: if we can address the barriers at the center of the cluster, we can likely influence connected barriers through both direct and indirect means.

21 of 25

Exemplars and Opportunities Analysis

Our team conducted a desk review �and mapping of programs, interventions, and solutions linked to the 35 WEE-FI barriers with the goal �of providing the FSP team and �industry actors with a go-to reference �of interventions that could be used �as inspiration for the design or modification of WEE-FI programming.

The interventions included in our list of exemplary interventions or “exemplars” meet the following criteria:

Have some rigorous measurement of impact (set either in a randomized controlled trial or project with rigorous M&E)
Achieved positive outcomes directly addressing the WEE-FI barriers
Achieved significant positive outcomes for women

We also found that the majority of interventions within the exemplars focused on Government policy or regulation, Product rollout, Capacity building, Financial assistance.

22 of 25

22

Exemplars and Opportunities Analysis – Design Principles

Five design principles emerged as the most common principles throughout our �exemplar research.

Bundling a product/service rollout �with capacity building training

Targeting both supply and demand side actors under one program

Leveraging multiple communication channels for recruitment, and trusted community members for program implementation

Using women-centered design models

Making interventions affordable

01

02

03

04

05

Alex

A key part of our exemplar analysis was identifying the design principles that were incorporated into each activity, program, and intervention.

We define design principles as a set of guiding rules and elements to be considered during a program’s conception and design. These principles will help create intentional, effective, and valuable interventions and activities that work for women.

Interventions that adopted one or more of these principles were also found to be successful in addressing barriers to WEE-FI and meeting their intended objectives.

These five principles should be considered when designing programs and activities specifically for women, given their popularity in existing programming and impacts on improving access and usage of financial services.

The five key design principles we identified are:

23 of 25

23

Exemplars and Opportunities Analysis – Design Principles

The barrier diagnostic tool is meant to support both POs and implementing partners assess, within a country context, the sequence in which they should approach barriers to WEE-FI.

Hamilton

A key part of our exemplar analysis was identifying the design principles that were incorporated into each activity, program, and intervention.

We define design principles as a set of guiding rules and elements to be considered during a program’s conception and design. These principles will help create intentional, effective, and valuable interventions and activities that work for women.

Interventions that adopted one or more of these principles were also found to be successful in addressing barriers to WEE-FI and meeting their intended objectives.

These five principles should be considered when designing programs and activities specifically for women, given their popularity in existing programming and impacts on improving access and usage of financial services.

The five key design principles we identified are:

24 of 25

24

Section 1: Prerequisite barriers (account ownership)

Section 2: Cost and Accessibility barriers (account ownership/basic usage)

Section 3: Information/capacity and product/service quality barriers (basic usage and active usage)

Section 4: Consumer protection and human resources barriers (active usage/WEE-FI) ��

The diagnostic tool is a simple checklist that highlights key questions that can help establish which barriers may be more relevant for a specific market context.

Barrier Diagnostic Tool

Each section provides questions relevant to different aspects of the customer journey

Hamilton

To do this, the diagnostic tool is divided into four sections, with each section being associated to the different stages of the customer journey. Each section has a set of yes or no questions regarding the target population. POs and implementing partners can start in section 1 and work their way through each section. If they come across a section where the majority of answers are no, then it is recommended they pause and focus on the key barriers associated with that section. The barrier categories associated with each section can be found to the right.

The diagnostic tool providers links to publicly available datasets or suggestions on key stakeholders within the country (i.e. financial service providers) where the answers to each question can be found. The tool also provides guidance on which exemplars are related to each question should POs and Implementing Partners want to examine how other interventions addressed the barrier. To tool should be used as a starting point, and a way to explain, using evidence, why particular interventions are right for a PO or implementing partner to pursue in a specific market context.

25 of 25

For questions please contact:�

Alexandra Fiorillo - alex@gridimpact.org

Thank you!

July 2022