Every minute, on average, 31 people are displaced — forced to leave their jobs, homes and even their families. These refugees often arrive, after arduous journeys, in new countries with no money or identification, and few possessions.
Yet, far from securing a safer, more prosperous future, they often find themselves marginalized, excluded and even demonized, denied opportunities to integrate into their host societies or contribute to the local economy.
One straightforward way to empower refugees is to give them access to financial services.
Financial services providers have long neglected this population, owing to accessibility and identification challenges, together with perceptions of refugees as a high-risk group.
However, technological advances in the past decade have made providing financial services to refugees easier, safer and more cost-effective than ever.
Thanks to digital and mobile technologies, banking no longer happens primarily in brick-and-mortar branches, but rather on people’s phones, wherever they are. This has facilitated the rise of digital wallets that enable users to receive, store and spend money using only their phones.
In the past few years, mobile money has become wildly popular in sub-Saharan Africa in particular, and it can be a game changer for the world’s massive unbanked population — 1.7 billion people — two-thirds of whom already own a mobile phone that could act as a gateway to financial services.
There is little reason to distinguish refugees from the rest of the world’s unbanked. Contrary to popular belief, refugees are not a higher-risk demographic: The Kiva World Refugee Fund Impact Report found that, when it comes to loan repayment, refugees are on par with non-refugees.
Moreover, thanks to facial recognition and artificial intelligence technologies, banks can now instantly verify users’ identities, using, for example, a quick iris scan run through an open-source identity verification application programming interface (API).
As a result, refugees’ lack of an identity card, loan collateral and/or a fixed address is becoming irrelevant. This is likely to be all the more true with the introduction of ID2020, a collaboration among Microsoft, Accenture and the UN that will use biometric data and blockchain — distributed ledgers — to create an encrypted, permanent and shareable means of identification for all refugees.
It is in the interest of financial services providers themselves to make use of blockchain. True, the technology — which facilitates direct transactions among parties, creating a permanent and immutable record — has the potential to displace financial services providers in the long term, by ending their monopoly on intermediating trust.
Yet, in the short term, its adoption by banks could slash costs and reduce the risk of fraud, thereby enabling the rapid expansion of services to refugees, among others. In this sense, blockchain could revolutionize credit access for refugees.
Already, blockchain is being used to help refugees. For example, in Jordan, the Zaatari refugee camp distributes humanitarian aid using blockchain and cryptocurrency. Each refugee is issued a digital wallet, into which money for food and supplies is deposited, with facial recognition being used to verify transactions.
The results have been compelling: fair and accurate aid distribution, a 98 percent reduction in transaction fees and fewer cases of misappropriation of funds.
In Finland, MONI, a blockchain start-up, and the Finnish Immigration Service have issued refugees a digital identification stored using blockchain. With a MONI account, refugees can access government benefits, even if they have lost their passports. Such uses of blockchain reduce reliance on government-issued identification, as they encourage the acceptance of other forms, such as a UN-issued refugee identity document.
There is another, long-term rationale for financial services providers to expand services to refugees. Doing so would allow them to collect data and learn valuable lessons that can help shape their approach to increasingly mobile global customers, who are shifting from full-time jobs to remote and freelance work in the “gig economy.”
The creditworthiness of freelancers — expected to represent 43 percent of the workforce by 2020 — can be difficult to determine, owing to their irregular and unpredictable incomes. So-called digital nomads also often lack a permanent address, making it difficult to conduct credit checks.
Thus, these workers of the future raise many of the same challenges for traditional financial services that refugees do. Alternative credit-scoring methods that are created for refugees today could be applied much more widely in the future.
Given all of this, banks should act now to expand their services to refugees. They could follow the example of the financial technology (fintech) company MyBucks, which has already opened a banking branch in Malawi’s Dzaleka refugee camp to provide loans, mobile banking and training services.
Of course, resolving the refugee crisis and tapping the economic potential of the more than 25 million refugees worldwide would also require changes in other areas, beginning with destination country political narratives. In many countries, politicians and the media have been portraying refugees as a threat to security, cultural cohesion and public resources.
Former US secretary of state Hillary Rodham Clinton blamed her loss to Donald Trump in the 2016 presidential election, and the Brexit vote that preceded it, on the public backlash against immigration, and recently suggested that Europe should admit fewer refugees to stem the rise of populism.
The German Chancellor’s Personal Representative for Africa, Gunter Nooke, had an even more unpalatable proposal: African countries should cede land to be administered by the EU as special economic zones, in what would amount to “voluntary colonialism.”
Such solutions are not only unethical; they would not end the crisis. Humanitarian aid alone will not work either, except as a stopgap measure. To preserve long-term stability and dynamism, host countries must unlock economic opportunities for refugees. Financial services providers and fintech companies, known for their capacity for disruption, can play a key role in that process.
Jacqueline Musiitwa, a 2014 Aspen New Voices fellow, is a regulatory attorney and an inclusive finance specialist in Uganda.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers