The Causal Relationship between FinTech, Financial Inclusion, and Income Inequality in African Economies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Income inequality is one of the biggest problems affecting developing economies. Market imperfections and information asymmetry lead to lack of access to the financial system, which will exacerbate income inequality. The growing adoption of FinTech (financial technology) has altered the structure of how financial services are delivered and makes these services accessible to underserved groups. This study explores the causal relationship between FinTech development, financial inclusion, and income inequality in a panel study of 29 African countries. We apply pooled OLS regression and structural equation models to samples from the years 2011, 2014, and 2017. The findings indicate that FinTech has a positive and statistically significant effect on financial inclusion and income inequality in African countries. The study results also demonstrate that financial inclusion plays a pivotal mediation role in the negative effect of FinTech on income inequality in African economies. Further, financial inclusion (the ability to create a bank account and borrow money) negatively and significantly affects income inequality in African countries, whereas saving shows a positive and significant impact on income inequality. Overall, our study results suggest that to reduce income inequality and increase the effectiveness of FinTech investments, policymakers in African countries should design proper policies to enhance financial inclusion and offer more accessible and equitable financial services.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".