Driving Financial Inclusion in Indonesia with Innovative Credit Scoring
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Innovative Credit Scoring (ICS) holds promise for reshaping financial inclusion in Indonesia, offering a potent alternative to conventional credit assessments that often exclude underserved populations. By leveraging alternative data—from telco records to e-commerce and social media footprints—and AI/ML technologies, ICS can deliver more accurate, inclusive, and responsive credit evaluations. However, its potential is constrained by structural inefficiencies and weak regulatory frameworks. This study employs a qualitative, exploratory design based on eight focus group discussions with 36 stakeholders, including regulators, financial institutions, data providers, and academics. Thematic analysis reveals three core barriers: fragmented regulation, limited data interoperability, and algorithmic opacity. To address these challenges, the paper recommends four policy priorities: (1) enforce and expand POJK 29/2024; (2) establish interoperable, integrated MSME data systems; (3) mandate algorithm audits to reduce bias and opacity; and (4) invest in digital infrastructure to close regional access gaps. Without these systemic shifts, ICS may fall short of its inclusive promise.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".