Developing a Multidimensional Financial Inclusion Index: A Comparison Based on Income Groups
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
The aim of our paper is to construct a multidimensional financial inclusion (FI) index to measure the level of FI in 91 countries across different income groups. In order to address our research problem, we use the principal component analysis method. This approach addresses the criticism of the arbitrary selection of weights and reflects the degree of financial inclusion in depth. The data are drawn from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) Financial Access Survey (FAS), the World Development Indicators (World Bank) and the Global Findex Database during the period of 2004–2020. This paper is the first to consider so many indicators of financial inclusion (13 indicators), belonging to three different dimensions of FI, in order to take into account the maximum number of aspects related to this concept. In addition, unlike previous work, this paper considers both developing and developed countries, which makes it possible to identify differences between them. The proposed index has some advantages. First, it is robust, comparable across countries and has good predictive power in tracking household microeconomic indicators (accounts and savings). It is also well correlated with macroeconomic variables such as literacy rate, poverty, GINI index, real interest rate and employers. Second, our results clearly show that, as a country’s income level grows higher, its level of financial inclusion also grows higher.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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