Does the Quality of Institutions Matter for Financial Inclusion? Cross Country Evidence
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite evidence on the importance of financial inclusion, little is known about the role of institutions in fostering inclusion partly because of data availability. Using annual data corresponding to 120 countries for the period 2004-2019, this study investigates country institutional characteristics associated with the ownership of deposit accounts. A standard regression model is estimated using fixed effects panel data techniques along with financial inclusion proxy and three measures of institutional quality. This paper provides the first empirical justification that financial inclusion is non-negligibly driven by the institutional context. Specifically, rule of law and quality of regulations are crucial in enhancing financial inclusiveness, more so in Africa where they have a stronger effect relative to other regions. Banks and depositors in Africa may be operating in an environment characterized by weak legal systems and excessive or challenging regulations. The evidence presented in this paper may therefore help with the sequencing of institutional reforms that could promote financial inclusion.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it