The dynamics of the financial inclusion index for developing countries: lessons learned
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to calculate the financial inclusion index and analyze its dynamics in developing countries. Design/methodology/approach The authors use the two-stage principal component analysis (PCA) method and consider financial technology innovations to improve the accuracy of the financial inclusion index. Findings The authors found a downward trend in the financial inclusion index in most developing countries over the study period. The authors also found that a high financial inclusion index is linked to high scores in the Doing Business and high business climate regulation ranking. In addition, the authors observed that the rates of low financial inclusion in developing countries are due to low utilization of and unequal access to financial services. Practical implications The analysis suggests that policymakers in developing countries could invest in digital infrastructure to extend access to financial services in remote areas. They could also encourage financial innovation, particularly in financial technologies, by adopting flexible regulatory frameworks. Promoting the financial inclusion of marginalized groups through targeted initiatives tailored to their needs is another solution. They could also encourage the use of financial services by raising awareness and educating populations through training programs. Finally, to improve the business climate, governments could simplify administrative procedures and promote transparency and legal stability. Originality/value Unlike previous studies, the use of the two-stage PCA method and the consideration of financial technology (Fintech) innovations such as mobile money in the determinants of the financial inclusion index improve the accuracy of the index.
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 | 0.004 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".