MobileActive.org

Conditional and unconditional cash transfers have been effective in improving development outcomes in a variety of contexts, yet the costs of these programs to program recipients and implementing agencies are rarely discussed. The introduction of mobile money transfer systems in many developing countries offers new opportunities for a more cost-effective means of implementing cash transfer programs.

This paper reports on the first randomized evaluation of a cash transfer program delivered via the mobile phone. In response to a devastating drought in Niger, households in targeted villages received monthly cash transfers as part of a social protection program. One-third of targeted villages received a monthly cash transfer via a mobile money transfer system (called zap), whereas one-third received manual cash transfers and the remaining one-third received manual cash transfers plus a mobile phone. We show that the zap delivery mechanism strongly reduced the variable distribution costs for the implementing agency, as well as program recipients’ costs of obtaining the cash transfer. The zap approach also resulted in additional benefits: households in zap villages used their cash transfer to purchase a more diverse set of goods, had higher diet diversity, depleted fewer assets and grew more types of crops, especially marginal cash crops grown by women.

We posit that the potential mechanisms underlying these results are the lower costs and greater privacy of the receiving the cash transfer via the zap mechanism, as well as changes in intra-household decision-making. This suggests that m-transfers could be a cost-effective means of providing cash transfers for remote rural populations, especially those with limited road and financial infrastructure. However, research on the broader welfare effects in the short- and long-term is still needed.

We examine the growth of mobile phone technology over the past decade and consider its potential impacts upon quality of life in low-income countries, with a particular focus on sub-Saharan Africa. We first provide an overview of the patterns and determinants of mobile phone coverage in sub-Saharan Africa before describing the characteristics of primary and secondary mobile phone adopters on the continent.

We then discuss the channels through which mobile phone technology can impact development outcomes, both as a positive externality of the communication sector and as part of mobile phone-based development projects, and analyze existing evidence.

While current research suggests that mobile phone coverage and adoption have had positive impacts on agricultural and labor market efficiency and welfare in certain countries, empirical evidence is still somewhat limited. In addition, mobile phone technology cannot serve as the “silver bullet” for development in sub-Saharan Africa. Careful impact evaluations of mobile phone development projects are required to better understand their impacts upon economic and social outcomes, and mobile phone technology must work in partnership with other public good provision and investment.

In this comprehensive analysis, CGAP assessed whether branchless banking or mobile money services are more cost effective or cheaper for low income people than formal banking. The authors, McKay and Pickens, compared pricing of 16 leading branchless banking services across eight ways that customers use branchless banking. They subsequently compared the pricing of these services against 10 formal banks and other informal money transfers options.

The eight use cases refer to: 1) sending money transfer, 2) receiving money transfer, 3)short-term safekeeping, 4) medium term savings, 5) bill payments, 6) high usage, 7) m-PESA customer, and 8) kenya bank customer.

The results say that branchless banking is 19% cheaper than banks, and have a lower transaction value. Additionally, branchless banking is 54% cheaper than informal options formoney transfer.They also discuss in detail how pricing influences customer usage.

M-PESA an agent-assisted, mobile phone-based, person-to-person payment and money transfer system, was launched in Kenya on March 6, 2007. This study is the first of its kind to explore the economic effects of M-PESA in Kenya at the community level.

The findings from the first stage of the study indicate that M-PESA affects the economic outcomes of community members, both users and non-users of M-PESA, through direct and externality effects, and identify 11 economic effects within the broad categories of local economic expansion, security, capital accumulation and business environment after 2.5 years of M-PESA’s use in these communities. The research also shows that effects were not visible in all the study communities and among all the population segments within the communities; they tended to be influenced by gender and geographic location of the communities.

Also, the effects were not always perceived as mutually exclusive, but as interwoven with each other to produce overall community effects.

There was a time when the adoption of mobile phones was expected to be limited to the wealthy and early mobile phone designs included a number of features that supported shared use on the assumption that few people would be able to afford one of their own. 4 billion plus cellular subscribers later and it’s the mobile phone owning residents of Accra or Cairo that are more likely to use multiple devices than the residents of London or Tokyo.

The first billion mobile phones were sold in about twenty years, the second billion took four years, and the third billion were sold in just two. That the mobile phone has had a positive qualitative and quantitative impact on many of the world’s poor is no longer an issue for debate, and the simple fact that many invest in a few months salary to purchasing one suggests that it continues to meet a broad spectrum of base user needs from directly creating revenue generating opportunities to indirectly supporting survival. As a personally carried, connected device the mobile phone is in a prime position to bring mobile money services to the world’s unbanked, and today there is much activity, debate and not a little hype on its potential (Ramussen, 2009).

This paper discusses the factors that will affect whether recently established mobile money services such as M-PESA can also achieve success in other markets, and whether new services and business models will fly or fail? What can we learn from previous research into mobile phone behaviours and practices?