Types of Research
- (-) Remove Poverty filter Poverty
- (-) Remove Technology Adoption filter Technology Adoption
- (-) Remove 2018 filter 2018
- (-) Remove South Asia Region and Selected Countries filter South Asia Region and Selected Countries
- (-) Remove 2011 filter 2011
Many low- and middle-income countries remain challenged by a financial infrastructure gap, evidenced by very low numbers of bank branches and automated teller machines (ATMs) (e.g., 2.9 branches per 100,000 people in Ethiopia versus 13.5 in India and 32.9 in the United States (U.S.) and 0.5 ATMs per 100,000 people in Ethiopia versus 19.7 in India and 173 in the U.S.) (The World Bank 2015a; 2015b). Furthermore, only an estimated 62 percent of adults globally have a banking account through a formal financial institution, leaving over 2 billion adults unbanked (Demirgüç–Kunt et al., 2015). While conventional banks have struggled to extend their networks into low-income and rural communities, digital financial services (DFS) have the potential to extend financial opportunities to these groups (Radcliffe & Voorhies, 2012). In order to utilize DFS however, users must convert physical cash to electronic money which requires access to cash-in, cash-out (CICO) networks—physical access points including bank branches but also including “branchless banking" access points such as ATMs, point-of-sale (POS) terminals, agents, and cash merchants. As mobile money and branchless banking expand, countries are developing new regulations to govern their operations (Lyman, Ivatury, & Staschen, 2006; Lyman, Pickens, & Porteous, 2008; Ivatury & Mas, 2008), including regulations targeting aspects of the different CICO interfaces.
EPAR's work on CICO networks consists of five components. First, we summarize types of recent mobile money and branchless banking regulations related to CICO networks and review available evidence on the impacts these regulations may have on markets and consumers. In addition to this technical report we developed a short addendum (EPAR 355a) which includes a description of findings on patterns around CICO regulations over time. Another addendum (EPAR 355b) summarizes trends in exclusivity regulations including overall trends, country-specific approaches to exclusivity, and a table showing how available data on DFS adoption from FII and GSMA might relate to changes in exclusivity policies over time. A third addendum (EPAR 355c) explores trends in CICO network expansion with a focus on policies seeking to improve access among more remote or under-served populations. Lastly, we developed a database of CICO regulations, including a regulatory decision options table which outlines the key decisions that countries can make to regulate CICOs and a timeline of when specific regulations related to CICOs were introduced in eight focus countries, Bangladesh, India, Indonesia, Kenya, Nigeria, Pakistan, Tanzania, and Uganda.
The purpose of this literature review is to provide qualitative and quantitative examples of technologies, constraints and incentives for efficient waste treatment and reuse in Sub-Saharan Africa and Southeast Asia. We present relevant case studies and expert observations and experiences on the nutrient content in urine and feces, contaminants frequently found in untreated sludge and wastewater, waste treatment technologies that may be relevant for low-income countries, risks associated with waste reuse, benefits to resource recovery in agriculture. We further discuss reasons for waste treatment failures, including urbanization, observations on challenges with market-driven reuse in less developed countries, and examples of net-positive energy facilities in Europe and the United States. Much of the evidence presented in the literature relates to wastewater treatment processes or the sludge produced from wastewater treatment as opposed to untreated fecal sludge. However, examples of risks, failures, and opportunities for raw sludge treatment and reuse are discussed when available. In some cases, empirical evidence or case studies were not available for developing countries and alternatives are presented. Overall we found the empirical evidence on waste treatment and reuse in developing countries is quite thin.