Dataset Information

Mobile money and branchless banking regulations affecting cash-in, cash-out networks in low- and middle-income countries.

ABSTRACT: Background: We examined recent trends in mobile money and branchless banking regulations related to cash-in, cash-out (CICO) networks (physical access points allowing users to exchange physical cash and electronic money) in low- and middle-income countries, and reviewed evidence on the impacts of CICO regulations on markets and financial inclusion. Methods: Regulation and literature searches began in August 2017 and concluded in June 2018. For the regulatory search we compiled an original database of regulations targeting CICO networks in Bangladesh, India, Indonesia, Kenya, Nigeria, Pakistan, Tanzania, and Uganda. To review evidence of impacts of regulations we conducted additional global searches on Scopus, Google Scholar, and Google using keywords for specific regulatory approaches (e.g., regulation of CICO agents) or hypothesized impacts (e.g., financial inclusion). Results: The resulting database of CICO regulations in the eight focus countries includes 127 regulatory documents, which we coded for four groups of regulations, namely: Business Channel Requirements; Agent Requirements; Regulations on Caps, Fees and Charges; and Customer Identification Requirements. Early CICO regulations focused on agent selection rules, limits on fees, and know-your-customer requirements. More recent waves of regulation have expanded or restricted services CICO agents provide, and also imposed reporting requirements on service providers in an effort to prevent fraud or enhance financial inclusion. Our search for evidence of impacts of CICO regulations resulted in a sample of 90 documents published since 2005, of which only 31 provided evidence on CICO regulation impacts, with most limited in scope-suggesting rigorous policy analysis remains lacking in this quickly expanding sector. Conclusions: Many low- and middle-income countries have introduced regulations that may affect CICO networks, with regulatory approaches differing across geographies and over time. While anecdotal reports of regulatory impacts exist, we found limited evidence of impacts of regulations on CICO networks or on CICO-related financial inclusion.

SUBMITTER: Reynolds TW

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6610045 | biostudies-literature | 2018

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Mobile money and branchless banking regulations affecting cash-in, cash-out networks in low- and middle-income countries.

Reynolds Travis W TW Klawitter Marieka M Biscaye Pierre E PE Anderson C Leigh CL

Gates open research 20181128

<b>Background:</b> We examined recent trends in mobile money and branchless banking regulations related to cash-in, cash-out (CICO) networks (physical access points allowing users to exchange physical cash and electronic money) in low- and middle-income countries, and reviewed evidence on the impacts of CICO regulations on markets and financial inclusion. <b>Methods: </b>Regulation and literature searches began in August 2017 and concluded in June 2018. For the regulatory search we compiled an ...[more]

PMID: 31363714

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionChild malnutrition continues to be a significant global public health concern. Nutrition-related interventions have changed and diversified over the last two decades, with increasing emphasis on nutrition-sensitive programmes that address underlying determinants of child malnutrition. Cash transfer programmes (CTPs) are used with increasing popularity in lower-income and middle-income countries to improve both food/nutrition insecurity and resilience. Available studies, however, provide mixed findings on the outcomes of CTPs for child nutritional status. This review is the first stage of a research project to develop evidence-informed theories of how CTPs affect child malnutrition. These will be empirically tested in the field and contribute to a better understanding of how, why, for whom and in what circumstances CTPs can be implemented to optimise impacts on child nutritional status.Methods and analysisThis realist review is informed by available standards for realist reviews and follows a five-step process. In step 1, an initial scoping of literature identified potential contextual factors and underlying mechanisms that influence nutritional outcomes, and potential theories developed to address our research question. In step 2, a systematic literature search using multiple databases will be undertaken with papers screened using defined inclusion/exclusion criteria. In step 3, included studies will be appraised, data extracted into a bespoke data extraction tool and used to test and further refine our explanatory framework. The fourth step will synthesise, using a mix of inductive and deductive analytical processes to identify patterns, link chains of inference and tracking and linking of articles. The final step involves dissemination of a preliminary theory for feedback prior to empirically testing it in Kenya and Ethiopia where large-scale CTPs are being implemented.Ethics and disseminationThis review will not involve primary data collection. Findings will be presented in accordance with Realist and Meta-Narrative Evidence Synthesis: Evolving Standards guidelines and published in a peer-reviewed journal.Trial registration numberCRD42018110735.

Project description:BackgroundTo strengthen the impact of cash transfers, these interventions have begun to be packaged as cash-plus programmes, combining cash with additional transfers, interventions, or services. The intervention's complementary ("plus") components aim to improve cash transfer effectiveness by targeting mediating outcomes or the availability of supplies or services. This study examined whether cash-plus interventions for infants and children <5 are more effective than cash alone in improving health and well-being.Methods and findingsForty-two databases, donor agencies, grey literature sources, and trial registries were systematically searched, yielding 5,097 unique articles (as of 06 April 2021). Randomised and quasi-experimental studies were eligible for inclusion if the intervention package aimed to improve outcomes for children <5 in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) and combined a cash transfer with an intervention targeted to Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 2 (No Hunger), SDG3 (Good Health and Well-being), SDG4 (Education), or SDG16 (Violence Prevention), had at least one group receiving cash-only, examined outcomes related to child-focused SDGs, and was published in English. Risk of bias was appraised using Cochrane Risk of Bias and ROBINS-I Tools. Random effects meta-analyses were conducted for a cash-plus intervention category when there were at least 3 trials with the same outcome. The review was preregistered with PROSPERO (CRD42018108017). Seventeen studies were included in the review and 11 meta-analysed. Most interventions operated during the first 1,000 days of the child's life and were conducted in communities facing high rates of poverty and often, food insecurity. Evidence was found for 10 LMICs, where most researchers used randomised, longitudinal study designs (n = 14). Five intervention categories were identified, combining cash with nutrition behaviour change communication (BCC, n = 7), food transfers (n = 3), primary healthcare (n = 2), psychosocial stimulation (n = 7), and child protection (n = 4) interventions. Comparing cash-plus to cash alone, meta-analysis results suggest Cash + Food Transfers are more effective in improving height-for-age (d = 0.08 SD (0.03, 0.14), p = 0.02) with significantly reduced odds of stunting (OR = 0.82 (0.74, 0.92), p = 0.01), but had no added impact in improving weight-for-height (d = -0.13 (-0.42, 0.16), p = 0.24) or weight-for-age z-scores (d = -0.06 (-0.28, 0.15), p = 0.43). There was no added impact above cash alone from Cash + Nutrition BCC on anthropometrics; Cash + Psychosocial Stimulation on cognitive development; or Cash + Child Protection on parental use of violent discipline or exclusive positive parenting. Narrative synthesis evidence suggests that compared to cash alone, Cash + Primary Healthcare may have greater impacts in reducing mortality and Cash + Food Transfers in preventing acute malnutrition in crisis contexts. The main limitations of this review are the few numbers of studies that compared cash-plus interventions against cash alone and the potentially high heterogeneity between study findings.ConclusionsIn this study, we observed that few cash-plus combinations were more effective than cash transfers alone. Cash combined with food transfers and primary healthcare show the greatest signs of added effectiveness. More research is needed on when and how cash-plus combinations are more effective than cash alone, and work in this field must ensure that these interventions improve outcomes among the most vulnerable children.

Project description:The decreasing effectiveness of antimicrobial agents is a growing global public health concern. Low-income and middle-income countries are vulnerable to the loss of antimicrobial efficacy because of their high burden of infectious disease and the cost of treating resistant organisms. We aimed to assess if copayments in the public sector promoted the development of antibiotic resistance by inducing patients to purchase treatment from less well regulated private providers.We analysed data from the WHO 2014 Antibacterial Resistance Global Surveillance report. We assessed the importance of out-of-pocket spending and copayment requirements for public sector drugs on the level of bacterial resistance in low-income and middle-income countries, using linear regression to adjust for environmental factors purported to be predictors of resistance, such as sanitation, animal husbandry, and poverty, and other structural components of the health sector. Our outcome variable of interest was the proportion of bacterial isolates tested that showed resistance to a class of antimicrobial agents. In particular, we computed the average proportion of isolates that showed antibiotic resistance for a given bacteria-antibacterial combination in a given country.Our sample included 47 countries (23 in Africa, eight in the Americas, three in Europe, eight in the Middle East, three in southeast Asia, and two in the western Pacific). Out-of-pocket health expenditures were the only factor significantly associated with antimicrobial resistance. A ten point increase in the percentage of health expenditures that were out-of-pocket was associated with a 3·2 percentage point increase in resistant isolates (95% CI 1·17-5·15; p=0·002). This association was driven by countries requiring copayments for drugs in the public health sector. Of these countries, moving from the 20th to 80th percentile of out-of-pocket health expenditures was associated with an increase in resistant bacterial isolates from 17·76% (95% CI 12·54-22·97) to 36·27% (31·16-41·38).Out-of-pocket health expenditures were strongly correlated with antimicrobial resistance in low-income and middle-income countries. This relation was driven by countries that require copayments on drugs in the public sector. Our data suggest cost-sharing of antimicrobials in the public sector might drive demand to the private sector in which supply-side incentives to overprescribe are probably heightened and quality assurance less standardised.National Institutes of Health.

Dataset Information

Mobile money and branchless banking regulations affecting cash-in, cash-out networks in low- and middle-income countries.

Publications

Mobile money and branchless banking regulations affecting cash-in, cash-out networks in low- and middle-income countries.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets