The world has made remarkable progress in advancing financial inclusion. In the decade beginning in 2011, the share of adults with access to financial services rose 50 percent to more than three-quarters, but we still have a long way to go in creating a truly inclusive financial system. Beyond expanding access to financial products and services, we must ensure that these products and services work for all people, including the 1.2 billion people worldwide with disabilities.
The first generation of financial technology disrupted traditional banking by facilitating access for the underbanked (think mobile money and micro loans). The next wave of innovation must go further, embracing “universal inclusion” as a basic design principle. Universal inclusion captures the idea that everyone deserves access to financial tools that genuinely meet their needs and improve their well-being.
We already have examples of what this might look like. Consider tap-to-phone technology, which enables merchants to accept payments using smartphones — no payment terminal needed. This functionality has obvious benefits for all buyers and sellers, from convenience to safety, but it also enables blind individuals, who might struggle to count cash, to participate more fully in the digital economy. People with conditions affecting their mobility — such as arthritis, multiple sclerosis, Parkinson’s disease and cerebral palsy — might also rely on tap-to-phone technology.
The same goes for voice-activated payments — they are convenient for all, but crucial for blind individuals, and those with limited mobility or literacy challenges. This is universally inclusive design at its best — so practical that everyone, disabled or not, uses it. The widespread adoption of such technologies makes them even easier for those with disabilities to use. Since 62 percent of disabilities are invisible, asking for accommodations can be very difficult, but nobody would bat an eyelid about an “accessible” tool if they are already using it.
However, despite some successes, the prevailing approach to the development of financial products does not put nearly enough emphasis on inclusivity. This represents not only a moral failure, but also a missed economic opportunity. People with disabilities, together with their friends and families, represent a staggering US$13 trillion of disposable income. As lifespans increase, this group’s numbers — and spending power — are set to rise.
Beyond the direct returns of tapping this large and underserved market, financial services companies pursuing universal inclusion would become more attractive to other customers, especially the younger generation. A 2018 study showed that 91 percent of millennials (born between 1980 and 1994) would replace a product they normally buy with an alternative from a “purpose-driven” company. Gen Z (born between the mid-1990s and the early-2010s) is also strongly inclined toward brands that emphasize social values.
To make the most of universal inclusion, financial institutions should embrace a new innovation framework built on three pillars.
The first is a universally inclusive design approach, in which accessibility considerations shape solutions from the start. This would represent a significant shift from today’s compliance-based approach, in which adjustments are often made after the fact to meet minimum accessibility standards. Its success would depend significantly on ensuring that people with disabilities participate in every phase of the design process.
The second pillar of a new financial technology framework is data. Measuring our progress on overall financial inclusion is important, but so is collecting detailed data that differentiate among groups or segments. Such data should go beyond access to cover the quality of services and changes in financial well-being that result from the industry’s products.
Third, clear accountability and reporting standards are essential. Regulatory frameworks must include incentives for financial services institutions to disclose their progress on universal inclusion metrics, making these results as fundamental to their reporting as traditional financial indicators.
The benefits of universal inclusion extend beyond profit. The economy becomes more resilient and dynamic when all people can participate in it fully, and efforts to meet the needs of one underserved group can lead to innovations that benefit all — a phenomenon known as the “curb-cut effect,” a reference to the sidewalk ramps that were designed for wheelchair users, but improved the lives of many others, from parents with strollers to delivery workers.
Rather than viewing accessibility as a barrier to overcome, we must recognize its potential as a catalyst for innovation and growth. Universal inclusion in financial services is not just about doing good, it is about doing good business.
Carl Manlan is vice president of inclusive impact and sustainability at Visa CEMEA. Adanna Chukwuma, an Aspen first mover fellow, is senior director of global impact measurement at Visa.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
The conflict in the Middle East has been disrupting financial markets, raising concerns about rising inflationary pressures and global economic growth. One market that some investors are particularly worried about has not been heavily covered in the news: the private credit market. Even before the joint US-Israeli attacks on Iran on Feb. 28, global capital markets had faced growing structural pressure — the deteriorating funding conditions in the private credit market. The private credit market is where companies borrow funds directly from nonbank financial institutions such as asset management companies, insurance companies and private lending platforms. Its popularity has risen since
The Donald Trump administration’s approach to China broadly, and to cross-Strait relations in particular, remains a conundrum. The 2025 US National Security Strategy prioritized the defense of Taiwan in a way that surprised some observers of the Trump administration: “Deterring a conflict over Taiwan, ideally by preserving military overmatch, is a priority.” Two months later, Taiwan went entirely unmentioned in the US National Defense Strategy, as did military overmatch vis-a-vis China, giving renewed cause for concern. How to interpret these varying statements remains an open question. In both documents, the Indo-Pacific is listed as a second priority behind homeland defense and
Every analyst watching Iran’s succession crisis is asking who would replace supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Yet, the real question is whether China has learned enough from the Persian Gulf to survive a war over Taiwan. Beijing purchases roughly 90 percent of Iran’s exported crude — some 1.61 million barrels per day last year — and holds a US$400 billion, 25-year cooperation agreement binding it to Tehran’s stability. However, this is not simply the story of a patron protecting an investment. China has spent years engineering a sanctions-evasion architecture that was never really about Iran — it was about Taiwan. The
In an op-ed published in Foreign Affairs on Tuesday, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) said that Taiwan should not have to choose between aligning with Beijing or Washington, and advocated for cooperation with Beijing under the so-called “1992 consensus” as a form of “strategic ambiguity.” However, Cheng has either misunderstood the geopolitical reality and chosen appeasement, or is trying to fool an international audience with her doublespeak; nonetheless, it risks sending the wrong message to Taiwan’s democratic allies and partners. Cheng stressed that “Taiwan does not have to choose,” as while Beijing and Washington compete, Taiwan is strongest when
RSS