Category: Finance

First impressions matter − they shape how we’re judged in mere seconds, research shows. People are quick to evaluate others’ competence, likability and honesty, often relying on superficial cues such as appearance or handshake strength. While these snap judgments can be flawed, they often have a lasting impact. In employment, first impressions not only affect hiring choices but also decisions about promotion years later.

As a researcher in cognitive science, I’ve seen firsthand how first impressions can pose a challenge for individuals with autism spectrum disorder, or ASD. People with ASD often display social behaviors − such as facial expressions, eye contact, gestures and sense of personal space − that can differ from those of neurotypical individuals.

These differences are often misunderstood, leading people with ASD to be perceived as awkward, odd or even deceptive. People form these negative impressions in just seconds and report being reluctant to talk to, hang out with or even live near people on the spectrum.

It’s not surprising, then, that unfavorable first impressions create barriers for people with ASD in the workplace.

The interview trap

It starts with the job interview. Whether you’re seeking a position as a computer programmer at a tech firm or a dog groomer at a vet clinic, the job interview is a critical gateway. Success depends on your ability to think on your feet, communicate your qualifications and present yourself as likable, agreeable and collegial.

My research demonstrates that job seekers with ASD often perform poorly in interviews due to the social demands of the situation. This is true even when the candidate is highly qualified for the job they are seeking.

In one study, my colleagues and I videotaped mock job interviews with 30 young adults − half with ASD, half neurotypical − who were all college students without an intellectual disability. We asked them to discuss their dream jobs and qualifications for five minutes. Afterward, evaluators rated them on social traits, such as likability, enthusiasm and competence, and indicated how likely they were to hire each interviewee. As in most professional interviews, the evaluators weren’t aware that some candidates were on the autism spectrum.

Candidates with autism spectrum disorder were consistently rated less favorably on all social dimensions compared with people without the condition, and those unfavorable social ratings weighed heavily on hiring decisions. Even though candidates with ASD were rated as equally qualified as neurotypical candidates, they were significantly less likely to be hired.

Interestingly, when evaluators only read the candidates’ interview transcripts without watching the interviews, ratings for ASD candidates were the same as, or even better than, those for neurotypical candidates. This suggests that it’s not just what candidates say in an interview but how they present themselves socially that affects hiring decisions.

This is especially problematic for jobs that require minimal social interaction − think data analyst or landscaper − where a candidate’s qualifications should be the main consideration. By relying on interviews as a primary screening tool, employers may miss out on competent, qualified applicants with unique strengths.

Rethinking what makes a good candidate

Scientists have explored whether it’s possible to teach adults with ASD how to improve their interview skills, for example by maintaining more eye contact or standing at a socially acceptable distance from an interviewer.

While such training can help, it addresses only a small part of the problem, and I think this approach may not significantly improve employment outcomes for autistic adults.

For one, it reduces the challenges faced by adults with ASD to a limited set of behaviors. ASD is a complex condition, and research shows that the negative evaluations of individuals with ASD are not driven by a single difference or a collection of specific differences, but rather by the individual’s overall presentation.

In addition, this type of training often encourages individuals to mask their autistic traits, which could make a stressful interview even more difficult. Finally, if ASD candidates successfully mask their autism during the interview but can’t maintain that mask once they are hired, their longevity in the position could be at risk.

A more effective approach may be to change how interviews are conducted and how candidates are perceived. This includes giving employers meaningful education about autism and giving job applicants a way to disclose their diagnosis without penalty. Research shows that when people know more about autism spectrum disorder, they have more positive views of people with ASD. In addition, ratings of people with ASD are often more favorable when evaluators know about their diagnosis. Combining these two approaches − that is, pairing ASD education for employers with diagnostic disclosure for candidates − may lead to better outcomes.

My colleagues and I explored this possibility in a series of studies. Again, we showed raters the mock job interviews of candidates with and without ASD. This time, however, some evaluators watched a brief educational video about autism, learning about characteristics and strengths often associated with ASD before evaluating the mock interviews. In addition, these raters knew which candidates had an ASD diagnosis.

Even though raters still perceived the candidates with ASD as more awkward and less likable, they rated those candidates as equally qualified as neurotypical candidates and were just as likely to hire them. This boost in hiring ratings persisted even when the educational video about autism was viewed months before candidates were evaluated.

Notably, neither of these interventions was effective on its own. In different conditions, some evaluators simply got the training but didn’t receive diagnostic information about candidates; others received no education about autism but were aware of which candidates had ASD. Both groups continued to select against candidates with ASD in hiring decisions, even though the candidates with ASD were rated as highly qualified. It appears that both knowing a person has autism and understanding more about autism are important for overcoming negative first impressions.

We believe that our training fostered a greater understanding of the atypical interactive style and behaviors that can be common among adults with ASD. This understanding, when coupled with the knowledge of a candidate’s diagnosis, may have helped evaluators contextualize those behaviors and, in turn, place more emphasis on qualifications when making hiring decisions.

When hiring decisions are based on merit, both employees and employers benefit. First impressions, though impactful, can be deceptive and often bias decisions, particularly for individuals with ASD. Our findings highlight an important truth: Understanding autism enables employers to focus on qualifications, giving candidates with ASD a fair opportunity to succeed based on their true potential.

The Trump administration has recently revoked the visas of more than 1,300 foreign college students – detaining some – and launched immigration enforcement actions on college campuses across the country. This has raised concerns among the more than 1.1 million international students studying at U.S. universities.

Headlines are filled with perspectives from immigration and civil rights experts, but one aspect of the story often goes overlooked: the tremendous economic impact international students have on local communities.

Although the actual impact on enrollment won’t be known until the next academic year, interest from foreign students in pursuing graduate-level education in the U.S. fell sharply in the early days of the Trump administration, one analysis showed.

If these global scholars stay home, that’s bad economic news for cities and towns across the United States.

A $44 billion economic impact

Higher education is America’s 10th-largest export, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis. (Yes, even though students are coming into the U.S. for their education, economists consider it an export.)

Last year, U.S. colleges and universities attracted international students from 217 nations and territories, including one student from the island nation of Niue in the South Pacific. Their economic contributions added up to more than the value of U.S. telecommunications, computer and information services exports combined.

While the national impact is impressive, the effects at the local level are even more important. After all, nearly every city across the U.S. has at least one institution of higher learning.

The average international student brings a wallet stuffed with about $29,000 to spend on everything from tuition to pizza. As these students rent apartments, buy books and order DoorDash delivery to fuel all-nighters, they’re pumping money into the local community.

This money translates into American jobs. On average, a new job is created for every four international students enrolled in a U.S. college or university. In the 2023-24 academic year, about 378,175 jobs were created. And that’s just counting jobs that are directly supported by international students, such as local business hiring to staff retail shops and restaurants. If you count those jobs indirectly supported by international students, such as employees at a distribution center, the number is even higher.

A boon to local economies

In any of the 50 largest American cities, you’ll find at least one college or university with international students on campus. For these communities, global learners bring a most welcome financial aid package.

Consider Boston. Greater Boston hosts more than 50 colleges and universities, including Boston University, where I teach multinational finance and trade. The city’s economic gains from the more than 63,000 international students attending these schools are huge: about $3 billion.

Prestigious private schools are a draw, but hands down the biggest pull for international students are state universities and colleges. Of the nation’s top schools enrolling these students last year, 29 were state colleges and universities, attracting over 251,300 students.

In the top three of those public institutions alone − Arizona State University, the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign and the University of California, Berkeley − international students contributed nearly $1.7 billion, supporting over 16,800 jobs. Expand that to the top 10 − the University of California system takes four of those spots − and the numbers pop up to $4.68 billion and 47,136 jobs.

Bringing the world to Mankato

Yet international students aren’t just boosting the economies of major university towns. Consider Mankato, a small city of 45,000 about 80 miles from Minneapolis that hosts a Minnesota State University campus. In the 2023-24 academic year, about 1,716 international students called Mankato their home away from home.

Those students brought an infusion of $45.9 million into that community, supporting around 190 jobs. There are dozens of similar campuses in cities and towns like Mankato across the country. It adds up quickly.

In addition to private and public universities, community colleges attract thousands of global scholars. Although their international enrollment declined during Covid-19, community colleges are resurgent, attracting some 59,315 international students in 2024, with China, Vietnam and Nepal leading the countries-of-origin list.

Generating about $2 billion and supporting 8,472 jobs, they have a major economic impact − particularly in Texas, California and Florida, where the majority of these students come to learn.

Texas leads the nation with the three community colleges with the largest international enrollment: Houston Community College, Lone Star College and Dallas College. Of the $256.7 million and 1,096 jobs international students brought into those institutions, Lone Star led the pack with $102.3 million and 438 jobs, nearly one job created for every two international students − double the national average.

Due to changing demographics, American colleges enroll 2.3 million fewer domestic students than they did a decade ago − a decline of 10.7%. Colleges and universities are increasingly looking to international students to fill the gap. What’s more, universities tend to see international students as subsidizing domestic students, particularly since international students are generally ineligible for need-blind admissions.

Moreover, the vast majority of international students are funded by family or foreign sponsors. Few require student aid packages. In fact, less than 20% of all international students receive grant funding from a federal source, and most of that goes to postgraduates doing advanced research. If you look at undergraduate exchange students alone, just 0.1% receive any sort of public funding.

One thing’s for sure: Whether they’re attending small-town community colleges or the Ivies in big cities, international students bring a “high degree” of economic impact with them.

This is an updated version of a story originally published Aug. 13, 2024.

Providing cash transfers to low-income families can reduce child marriage rates among girls living in rural communities.

That is what we found in a recent study looking at the impact of social assistance programs that gave money to families in Indonesia.

In 2006, the government of Indonesia started to roll out the Program Keluarga Harapan, or Family Hope Program. It consisted of a cash transfer to poor families on condition that they send children to school and that expectant mothers show up for prenatal health care appointments. The monthly stipends equate to about 40% of total monthly household expenditures in their communities.

Today, the program supports about 10 million households annually and is considered the second-largest such program in lower- and middle-income countries worldwide.

We analyzed data from Indonesia’s poverty-targeting database, which is used to select program beneficiaries based on their income.

Our sample comprised about 1 million girls ages 14 to 17, drawn from all villages where the program operated from 2012 to 2014.

We compared girls who live in households just above and just below the wealth eligibility cutoff for the program. Essentially, this strategy assumes that these households are very similar, but some get the money while other’s don’t.

We found that the program reduced the incidence of child marriages by about 3.5 percentage points, from 8.7 to 5.2.

Why it matters

About 650 million girls alive today were married as children.

Though most countries have instituted laws prohibiting marriages under the age of 18, child marriages remain common in many regions of the world.

The continued existence of child marriage is worrisome for several reasons. Research has linked child marriage to higher infant and maternal mortality, a higher risk of sexually transmitted diseases, more exposure to domestic violence, reduced decision-making power inside marriage, lower educational attainment and worse health and labor market outcomes.

Since child marriage rates tend to be higher among poorer households, many researchers have argued that income constraints are a main reason why poor households marry off their daughters at very young ages.

Consequently, researchers have explored whether policies that address poverty, including through measures such as giving people cash, can help reduce child marriages.

Previous studies have faced certain empirical challenges as either the cash transfer programs under investigation were set up by NGOs or researchers themselves, thereby providing little insights on the effectiveness of actual government policies, or included sample sizes that were too small.

Our study is among the first to provide large-scale evidence of a cash-transfer program’s success drawn from a conventional, government-implemented social assistance program.

It is also worth briefly commenting on the political context in which social assistance programs are typically embedded. In Indonesia, as everywhere in the world, social assistance programs are regularly under scrutiny for their sizable costs to the government and taxpayer.

Our study suggests that these programs can generate positive benefits well beyond their principal target outcomes, such as tackling poverty or children’s health and education – which should be considered when discussing the cost-effectiveness of such programs.

What’s next

Because cash transfers also affect other areas such as health and education, it isn’t known the exact pathway in which they reduce child marriages – that is to say, it could be that being in better health and getting more years of education can reduce the chances that a girl will marry.

For example, girls with better access to education can earn higher pay and therefore may not feel the same pressure to marry early. And boys who spend more time in school may move to cities for higher-paying jobs. In that case, fewer single men are around in rural areas, leading to delays in local marriages.

We plan to stay in touch with the Indonesian government regarding its attempts to further bring down child marriage rates. Likewise, we plan to conduct follow-up studies with the specific social assistance program Program Keluarga Harapan and other government programs to study their effects.

As part of its drive to cut federal spending, the Trump administration has paused over US$500 million of funds that had previously flowed annually to food banks across the U.S. It’s not the only policy change that could make it harder than it already is for many Americans to get enough to eat.

I’m a professor of statistics who finds hidden patterns in data related to food insecurity in Iowa. I also serve on the board of directors of Iowa’s largest network of food pantries.

Food pantries in Iowa have seen demand for their assistance soar in recent years. At the same time, fewer Iowans have been enrolled in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, through which low-income Americans get money from the government to buy groceries.

Hunger in the breadbasket of the world

It may seem illogical that anyone in Iowa would need help obtaining food.

Known as the “breadbasket of the world,” my state plays a crucial role in food production as a top supplier of grain, meats and eggs to both domestic and international markets.

For example, in 2023, Iowa led the nation in corn production, harvesting over 2.5 billion bushels. It’s also the top producer of eggs, supplying more than 13 billion eggs per year.

Despite this agricultural abundance, food insecurity – not being able to maintain an adequate diet – is a pressing issue. In 2022, an estimated 1 in 9 Iowans were hungry. This rate was even higher among children: 1 in 6.

Food pantries struggle to keep up

Many food-insecure families turn to food pantries to fill their refrigerators and cupboards.

The Des Moines Area Religious Council operates 14 food pantries in the Polk County area. This network of food pantries has been seeing record-breaking demand. It provided food to more than 70,000 people in 2024, up from 59,000 a year earlier.

About 35% of the people it supports are children. This rate has been increasing since government phased out COVID-19 pandemic-era programs, such as the Child Tax Credit expansion and summer EBT, a federal nutrition program that helped low-income families feed their kids when schools were closed.

Some 19% of food pantry clients in the Des Moines region are unemployed adults, only 8% are people who are 65 and up, and 38% are adults who are either working or have disabilities.

Scaling back benefits in 2022

Early in the pandemic, Congress temporarily expanded SNAP by providing everyone enrolled in the program with the maximum amount of benefits for which they were eligible based on the number of people in their family, regardless of their income. Normally, only 37% of the people who get SNAP benefits get the maximum amount. For 2025, for example, a family of three can get up to $768 a month through the program.

In March 2022, Iowa became one of the first states to end this policy, creating a natural experiment of sorts at a time when food prices were rising quickly.

As you might expect, the number of clients visiting food pantries surged once that policy changed. This trend continued throughout 2024, with many months of record-breaking demand at the state’s food pantries.

Hunger is up, SNAP enrollment is down

While most food pantry visitors in Polk County qualify for at least some SNAP benefits, only around 1 in 3 are enrolled in the program today, down from 44% in 2020.

This decline in SNAP enrollment is placing more pressure on the food pantries trying to make up the difference.

Low SNAP enrollment rates can be partly explained by low benefit amounts, which is all that some eligible individuals and families qualify for.

Recent laws have made it more difficult for families to be eligible to receive benefits. In 2023, Iowa introduced a state-specific asset test, which limits the total assets of all members of a family to $15,000 in order to maintain eligibility. This test includes the value of boats, vacation homes and savings accounts. It also includes a second vehicle used for household transportation purposes, but not a family’s primary residence.

Another consideration is time management, especially in light of the additional administrative hurdles.

“The time it is taking these working households to get and maintain their SNAP benefits is significantly more time and effort than simply visiting a local food pantry,” said Matt Unger, Des Moines Area Religious Council’s CEO. “Here in Iowa, we are facing nearly a 17-year low in SNAP enrollment while food banks and food pantries across the state are breaking records every month. Something just doesn’t add up.”

Congress is currently deciding whether to cut SNAP spending. If lawmakers do that, benefits will decline, increasing the strain on food pantries in Iowa and everywhere else across the country.

Feeling tariff whiplash? You’re not alone. On April 2, 2025, President Donald Trump announced sweeping new tariffs – a 10% levy on nearly all U.S. imports, along with targeted duties aimed at punishing countries he accuses of exploiting American markets. Just a week later, on April 9, his administration abruptly paused much of the plan for 90 days, leaving markets and allies scrambling for clarity.

The proposed tariffs were pitched as a way to revive U.S. manufacturing, reclaim jobs and counter what Trump considers unfair trade practices. But they immediately rattled the financial markets and raised alarms among economists and America’s global partners. Critics across the political spectrum revived a familiar warning: “beggar-thy-neighbor.”

History shows that such policies rarely succeed. In today’s interconnected world, they’re more likely to provoke swift, precise and painful retaliation.

What is the ‘beggar-thy-neighbor’ strategy?

The phrase comes from economic history and refers to protectionist measures – tariffs, import restrictions or currency manipulation – designed to boost one country’s economy at the expense of its trading partners. Think of it like cleaning your yard by dumping the trash into your neighbor’s property: It looks tidy on your side until they respond.

This approach starkly contrasts with the principles laid out by Adam Smith. In “The Wealth of Nations,” he argued that trade is not a zero-sum game. Specialization and open markets, he observed, create mutual benefit – a rising tide that lifts all boats. Trump’s tariffs disregard this logic.

And history backs Smith. In the 1930s, the U.S. adopted a similar strategy to the one Trump is experimenting with through the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act, raising duties to protect domestic jobs. The result was a wave of global retaliation that choked international trade and worsened the Great Depression.

A case in point: Lesotho

As an example, consider the 50% tariff the United States imposed on imports from Lesotho, a small landlocked African nation. The measure took effect at midnight on April 3 but was reportedly subject to the 90-day pause starting midday April 4.

The tariff rate was calculated by taking the U.S. trade deficit with Lesotho – US$234.5 million in 2024 – dividing that by the total value of Lesotho’s exports to the U.S., or $237.3 million, and dividing that by two.

The 50% tariff would have a negligible effect on the U.S. economy – after all, out of the $3.3 trillion the U.S. imported in 2024, only a tiny fraction came from Lesotho. But for Lesotho, a nation that relies heavily on garment exports and preferential U.S. market access, the consequences would be severe. Using the same tariff logic across all partners, big or small, overlooks basic economic realities: differences in scale, trade capacity and vulnerability. It epitomizes beggar-thy-neighbor thinking: offloading domestic frustrations onto weaker economies for short-term political optics.

Lesotho is just one example. Even countries that import more from the U.S. than they export, such as Australia and the U.K., haven’t been spared. This “scoreboard” mentality – treating trade deficits as losses and surpluses as wins – risks reducing the complexity of global commerce to a tit-for-tat game.

The return of a familiar — and risky — playbook

Such thinking has consequences. During Trump’s first term, China retaliated against U.S. tariffs by slashing imports of American soybeans and pork. As a result, those exports plummeted from $14 billion in 2017 to just $3 billion in 2018, hitting politically sensitive states like Iowa hard. The European Union responded to U.S. steel and aluminum tariffs by threatening to target bourbon from Kentucky and motorcycles from Wisconsin – iconic products from the home states of former GOP leaders Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan. Canada and the European Union have shown a willingness to use similar tactics this time around.

This isn’t new. In 2002, President George W. Bush imposed tariffs of up to 30% on imported steel, prompting the European Union to threaten retaliatory tariffs targeting products such as Florida citrus and Carolina textiles made in key swing states. Facing domestic political pressure and a World Trade Organization ruling against the measure, Bush reversed course within 21 months.

A decade earlier, the Clinton administration endured a long-running trade dispute with the EU known as the “banana wars,” in which European regulators structured import rules that disadvantaged U.S.-backed Latin American banana exporters in favor of former European colonies.

During the Obama years, the U.S. increased visa fees that disproportionately impacted India’s technology services sector. India responded by delaying approvals for American drugmakers and large retail investments.

Not all forms of trade retaliation grab headlines. Many are subtle, slow and bureaucratic – but no less damaging. Customs officials can delay paperwork or may impose arbitrary inspection or labeling requirements. Approval for U.S. pharmaceuticals, tech products or chemicals can be stalled for vague procedural reasons. Public procurement rules can be quietly rewritten to exclude U.S. companies.

While these tactics rarely draw public attention, their cumulative cost is real: missed delivery deadlines, lost contracts and rising operational costs. Over time, American businesses may shift operations abroad – not because of labor costs or regulation at home, but to escape the slow drip of bureaucratic punishment they experience elsewhere.

Tariffs in a connected economy

Supporters of tariffs often argue that they protect domestic industries and create jobs. In theory, they might. But in practice, recent history shows they are more likely to invite retaliation, raise prices and disrupt supply chains.

Modern manufacturing is deeply interconnected. A product may involve assembling components from a dozen countries, moving back and forth across borders. Tariffs hurt foreign suppliers and American manufacturers, workers and consumers.

More strategically damaging, they erode U.S. influence. Allies grow weary of unpredictable trade moves, and rivals, including China and Russia, step in to forge deeper partnerships. Countries may reduce their exposure to the U.S. dollar, sell off Treasury bonds, or align with regional blocs like the BRICS group – led by Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa – not out of ideology, but necessity.

In short, the U.S. weakens its own strategic hand. The long-term cost isn’t just economic – it’s geopolitical.

Rather than resorting to beggar-thy-neighbor tactics, the U.S. could secure its future by investing in what truly drives long-term strength: smart workforce development, breakthrough innovation and savvy partnerships with allies. This approach would tackle trade imbalances through skillful diplomacy instead of brute force, while building resilience at home by equipping American workers and companies to thrive – not by scapegoating others.

History makes a clear case: Ditching the obsession with bilateral trade deficits and focusing instead on value creation pays off. The U.S. can source components from around the world and elevate them through unmatched design, innovation and manufacturing excellence. That’s the heartbeat of real economic might.

The Trump administration is working to lift regulations on coal-fired power plants in the hopes of making its energy less expensive. But while cost is one important aspect, utilities have a lot more to consider when they choose their power sources.

Different technologies play different roles in the power system. Some sources, like nuclear energy, are reliable but inflexible. Other sources, like oil, are flexible but expensive and polluting.

How utilities choose which power source to invest in depends in large part on two key aspects: price and reliability.

Power prices

One way to compare power sources is by their levelized cost of electricity. This shows how much it costs to produce one unit of electricity on average over the life of the generator.

The asset management firm Lazard has produced levelized cost of electricity calculations for the major U.S. electricity sources annually for years, and it has tracked a sharp decline in solar power costs in particular.

Coal is one of the more expensive technologies for utilities today, making it less competitive compared with solar, wind and natural gas, by Lazard’s calculations. Only nuclear, offshore wind and “peaker” plants, which are used only during periods of high electricity demand, are more expensive.

Land-based wind and solar power have the lowest estimated costs, far below what consumers are paying for electricity today. The National Renewable Energy Lab has found similar levelized costs for renewable energy, though its estimates for nuclear are lower than Lazard’s.

Upfront costs are also important and can make the difference for whether new power projects can be built, as the East Coast has seen lately.

Several offshore wind farms planned along the Northeast were canceled in recent years as costs rose due to inflation and supply chain problems during the pandemic. Construction costs for the two newest nuclear generators built in the U.S. also rose considerably as the projects, both in the Southeast, faced delays.

Reliability and flexibility matter

But cost is not the whole story. Utilities must balance a number of criteria when investing in power sources.

Most important is matching supply and demand at every moment of the day. Due to the technical characteristics of electricity and how it flows, if the supply of electricity is even a little bit lower than the demand, that can trigger a blackout. This means power companies and consumers need generation that can ramp down when demand is low and ramp up when demand is high.

Since wind and solar generation depend on the wind blowing and the sun shining, these sources must be combined with other types of generation or with storage, such as batteries, to ensure the power grid has exactly as much power as it needs at all times.

Nuclear and coal are predictable and run reliably, but they are inflexible – they take time to ramp up and down, and doing so is expensive. Steam turbines are simply not built for flexibility. The multiple days it took to shut down Japan’s Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant after an earthquake and tsunami damaged its backup power sources in 2011 illustrated the challenges and safety issues related to ramping down nuclear plants.

That means coal and nuclear aren’t as helpful on those hot summer days when utilities need a quick power increase to keep air conditioners running. These peaks may only happen a few days a year, but keeping the power on is crucial for human health and the economy.

In today’s energy system, the most flexible generation sources are natural gas and hydro. They can quickly adjust to meet changing electricity demand without the safety and cost concerns of coal and nuclear. Hydro can ramp in minutes but can only be built where large dams are feasible. The most cost-effective natural gas technology can ramp up within hours.

The big picture, by power source

Over the past two decades, natural gas use has risen quickly to overtake coal as the most common fuel for generating electricity in the U.S. The boom was largely driven by the growing use of fracking technology, which allowed producers to extract gas from rock and lowered the price.

Natural gas’s low price and high flexibility make it an attractive choice. Its rise is a large part of the reason coal use has plummeted.

But natural gas has its challenges. Natural gas requires pipelines to carry it across the country, leading to disruptive construction. As Texas saw during its February 2021 blackouts, natural gas equipment can also fail in extreme cold. And like coal, natural gas is a fossil fuel that releases greenhouse gases during combustion, so it is also helping to cause climate change and contributes to air pollution that can harm human health.

Nuclear power has been gaining interest recently since it does not contribute to climate change or local air pollution. It also provides a steady baseload of power, which is useful for computing centers as their demand does not fluctuate as much as households.

Of course, nuclear has ongoing challenges around the storage of radioactive waste and security concerns, and construction of large nuclear plants takes many years.

Coal is more flexible than nuclear, but far less so than natural gas or hydropower. Most concerning, coal is extremely dirty, emitting more climate-change-causing gases, and far more air pollution than natural gas.

Solar and wind have grown rapidly in recent years due to their falling costs and environmental benefits. According to Lazard, the cost of solar combined with batteries, which would be as flexible as hydropower, is well below the cost of coal with its limited flexibility.

However, wind and solar tend to take up a lot of space, which has led to challenges in local approvals for new sites and transmission lines. In addition, the sheer number of new projects is overwhelming power system operators’ ability to evaluate them, leading to increasing wait times for new generation to come online.

What’s ahead?

Utilities have another consideration: Federal, state and local governments can also influence and sometimes limit utilities’ choices. Tariffs, for example, can increase the cost of critical components for new construction. Permitting and regulations can slow down development. Subsidies can artificially lower costs.

In our view, policies that are done right can help utilities move toward more reliable and cost-effective choices which are also cleaner. Done wrong, they can be costly to the economy and the environment.

Social Security is one of the federal government’s biggest programs.

Roughly 67 million Americans, most of whom are 65 or older, received Social Security benefits in 2023. An estimated 183 million workers paid the Social Security payroll taxes that provided the bulk of the nearly US$1.4 trillion in benefits that year, which consumed 21% of the total federal budget.

But within a decade, Social Security could run short on funds to pay the full benefits Americans are counting on.

The retirement and disability program has been running a cash-flow deficit since 2010. The $2.7 trillion held in its two trust funds may seem immense, but those reserves are diminishing as the number of Americans getting benefits grows. Social Security’s trustees, a group that includes the secretaries of the departments of Treasury, Labor, and Health and Human Services, as well as the Social Security commissioner, projected in 2024 that both of its trust funds would be completely drained by 2035.

Under current law, when that trust fund is empty, Social Security can pay benefits only from dedicated tax revenues, which would, by that point, cover only about 79% of promised benefits. Another way to say this is that when that trust fund is depleted, the people who rely on Social Security for some or the bulk of their income would see a sudden 21% cut in their monthly checks in 2036.

As an economist who studies the Social Security system, I am alarmed that Democratic and Republican administrations alike have failed for more than three decades to take the actions necessary to keep its funding on track, either by raising taxes or cutting benefits. Instead, Congress has only made the program’s funding outlook worse. And now, the Trump administration is reducing the program’s staff, sending confusing signals about changes it intends to make, and undercutting the quality of service for the people who are eligible for these benefits.

But I do believe there are strategies that could help.

Taking steps backward

This gloomy outlook was clear to experts at least 32 years ago. In 1993, the Social Security trustees projected that the assets of the systems’ trust funds would be depleted in 2036.

Rather than resolve this now more imminent problem, Congress passed a law in December 2024 that could accelerate the crisis.

Called the Social Security Fairness Act, President Joe Biden signed it into law in early January. This measure ended the government’s prior practice of paying reduced Social Security benefits to retired teachers, firefighters and others who had pensions from their years of public service and who had not paid Social Security tax on much of their income. Now, these retirees will get full Social Security benefits. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that this change will cause the trust fund to be depleted six months earlier than previously expected.

President Donald Trump, for his part, wants the tax reform legislation Congress is working on to exempt all Social Security benefit payments from federal income taxes. Rep. Thomas Massie, a Kentucky Republican, has reintroduced a bill that would do that.

The University of Pennsylvania’s Penn Wharton Budget Model finds that should this new exemption take effect, it could make the trust fund run out of money two years earlier than the model currently predicts, hastening the day the Social Security program is forced to cut benefits.

In addition, Social Security already had record-sized backlogs of what it calls “pending actions,” according to a report from its own inspector general in August 2024.

And yet, despite this need to process paperwork faster, the agency is now less able to carry out its mission due to staffing cuts attributed to billionaire and Trump adviser Elon Musk’s so-called Department of Government Efficiency.

Principles for successful reform

Social Security is funded by a payroll tax of 12.4% on wages, which is split equally between workers and employers. Self-employed people pay the entire 12.4%. This payroll tax only applies to earnings up to $176,100 for 2025. The government increases this cap annually based on wage increases and inflation.

The program also receives about 5% of its revenue from interest generated by its trust funds and about 4% of its revenue from the tax that Trump wants to repeal.

The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a nonpartisan nonprofit that focuses on fiscal policy, provides an online interactive tool to help people see for themselves what specific measures might do to shore up Social Security. Examples include increasing the retirement age by one month every two years and increasing the cap on income subject to the payroll tax that funds Social Security so it covers more of the highest-earners’ income.

The Brookings Institution, a centrist think tank, has presented its own bipartisan blueprint for making the system solvent. The Social Security Administration itself has pooled what it sees as good ideas from outside experts.

Three main principles characterize the approaches supported by the policy analysts and researchers who have considered which reforms to Social Security might strengthen its finances and long-term continuing viability:

1. The program should be self-funded in the long run so that its annual revenues match its annual expenses.

2. The reform burden should be shared across generations. Current retirees can share the burden through a reduction in the cost-of-living adjustment. Today’s workers can share the burden through an increase in the cap on income subjected to Social Security taxes. Gradually increasing the retirement age to keep pace with anticipated longevity gains would also be borne by current workers and young Americans who haven’t gotten their first job yet.

3. The government should make sure that Social Security benefits will be adequate for lower-income retirees for years to come. That means reforms that slow the benefit growth of future retirees would be designed to affect only payments to higher-income retirees.

Ideally, in my view, any changes to Social Security should also help constrain the future growth of federal spending, given the current and projected growth in the budget deficit.

Past reform efforts

The last time the government made big changes to Social Security was in 1983, during the Reagan administration.

Back then, the government enacted reforms that slowly reduced benefits over time. These changes included raising the full retirement age, a change that is still being phased in. Because of those changes, workers born in 1960 or later cannot retire with full benefits until age 67 – two years later than the original retirement age.

The 1983 reforms also gradually increased the Social Security payroll tax rate from 10.4% to 12.4% by 1990, and for the first time levied federal income taxes on higher-income retirees’ benefits. Workers bore the burden of the payroll tax increases, and higher-income retirees bore the burden of the tax on benefits.

Those changes bolstered the program’s finances. One of those measures could potentially end if Trump manages to end the taxation of retirees’ Social Security benefits.

Today, about half of the Americans getting Social Security benefits pay some federal income taxes on that income, contributing revenue that helps finance the program as a whole. Taxpayers with annual income of at least $205,000 pay income tax that claws back about 20% of their benefits. That percentage is smaller for taxpayers with lower incomes. Individuals who get Social Security benefits and have incomes of less than $25,000 and couples making no more than $32,000 pay no income taxes on their Social Security benefits at all.

The most recent bipartisan effort to preserve the system’s solvency was in 2001. The Commission to Strengthen Social Security, during the George W. Bush administration, tried – and failed – to get Congress to enact reforms to shore up the program’s finances.

More than 20 years later, Americans and their elected representatives still seem unwilling to have a serious debate on these issues.

I believe waiting any longer is unwise.

Any solutions that might be introduced gradually today will no longer be viable in 2035 if the trust fund has been completely hollowed out. That would leave millions of older adults with lower incomes than they were counting on, plunging many of them into poverty.

Portions of this article were included in another piece published on June 1, 2023.

Can loans to low-income customers be delivered fully digitally, with no people or paper involved, while still protecting customer interests and maintaining portfolio quality? Enter x-techs.

A digital-first MFI built for scale

Avanti Finance (a member of CGAP’s ABERA cohort) is a digital-first non-banking financial company that aims to make financial services affordable and accessible to the next 100 million households in India by 2032. Their products include agriculture and livestock, small business, and earned wage loans to low-income customers in both rural and urban areas. Their loans – primarily in the 10,000-80,000 INR (about 115 to 920 USD) range – are offered at an average annual interest rate of 26% (compared to an industry average ranging from 22-28%). Around 90% of borrowers are women, with 60% new to credit (NTC).  

Avanti partners with organizations that have strong relationships and deep knowledge of local communities, their livelihoods, and financial services needs to identify, onboard, and serve their customers. Partners are varied and include NGOs, community-based organizations, and microfinance institutions (MFIs) leveraging the latest technologies to meet their business goals.  This also includes x-techs – companies in any given sector that leverage the latest technologies to carry out their work/ activities.

Leveraging technology throughout the paperless, physical presence-less loan disbursement process translates to operational and cost efficiencies for Avanti and its partners and better experiences for the customers they serve. The technology is built to facilitate a fully digital onboarding process which, through an agent-facing app, allows for quick data and identity verification without a need for hard copies of any Know Your Customer documents. It leverages Aadhaar (India’s ubiquitous unique digital ID system), universal bank account ownership, and other components of the nation’s digital public infrastructure for a paperless experience. Loan agreements and communications are also digital, eliminating the need for paper.    

Thanks to its strong tech and partner infrastructure, Avanti does not need to establish brick-and-mortar outlets and can keep its workforce lean, especially in the field—Avanti serves over 583,000 customers across 26 states with less than 200 employees. Staff at Avanti’s partner organizations act as Avanti’s agents—equipped with the Avanti app, they engage with customers and play an important customer-facing role.

Loan disbursements are 100% digital, deposited directly into the customer’s bank accounts, while repayments are 35% digital, compared to the industry average of 15%. For ease of digital repayments, each user has their own unique QR code which they receive via WhatsApp or as a PDF through SMS (depending on the customer’s phone ownership profile) through which repayments are made. Those who prefer to make cash repayments can do so through an agent or at specific locations.  Customers who are skeptical about but not comfortable making a digital repayment on their own can do so in the presence and under the guidance of an agent.    

All of this means that Avanti realizes time and cost efficiencies in both operations and collections.    

The technology has been built for scale from the get-go, making it cost-effective and easy for Avanti to scale through new partnerships. This will enable them to grow their portfolio but also expand into geographies to reach new customers, many of whom may be NTC, therefore bringing more people into the fold of formal credit.  

What customers say about the experience

Avanti’s technology is set up for individual lending (all loans are individual loans) even though loans originate through group constructs leveraging Avanti partners. This means customers are not limited to a single joint liability group product.  Customers from the same MFI or livelihoods group can access individually tailored loan terms based on their needs and credit history. As long as Avanti continues to co-create with its various partners, the customers will benefit from having products designed to truly meet their livelihood needs and matched to their cash flow realities.  

We heard through focus group discussions customer appreciation for the time and cost savings the paperless loan application process affords. One woman shared that with other MFIs, simply obtaining a hard copy of the required family photograph meant spending half a day traveling to and from a printing shop, losing income for the day, and paying 300 INR (about 3.50 USD) plus transport costs.

Why partners see value too

Efficiencies for Avanti translate to efficiencies for partner organizations. One of Avanti’s partners, an MFI, said that the paperless process helps them reduce stationery costs and lets them work out of a smaller office, given there are no paper files to store. Avanti has taken a user-centric approach while factoring in the realities of the operating environment, resulting in improved experiences and efficiencies.    

Avanti’s technology meets people where they are, with what they have – their app runs on an Android phone, unlike other MFIs’ apps that require a dedicated tablet. Not only does this contribute to partners’ cost efficiencies, but it also eases the burden of adopting new tech. 

One partner praised the functionality of both the Avanti app and management information system which enables them to better serve their customers. The technology integrations enable agents to quickly verify documents, resulting in quicker loan disbursals.  The app being on their phones allows them to independently problem-solve and resolve customer queries, strengthening customer trust as a result.  

Avanti’s mobile app’s UI/ UX has been designed with the user at its core, making it easy for them to use. This translates to reduced new partner onboarding and field officer training time, contributing to overall efficiency.   

What this means for inclusive finance

 Avanti’s experience offers a compelling response to the questions posed at the start: yes, loans to low-income customers can be delivered digitally — with minimal paper or in-person interaction — while still protecting customers and maintaining portfolio quality. But doing so requires intentional design, ongoing user consultation and engagement, and investment in digital and financial literacy. Avanti’s approach also aligns partner incentives, encouraging digital repayment through commissions that reduce the cost and risks of cash handling. These efficiencies don’t just benefit the provider through a lower cost of capital — they bring more competitive rates for borrowers. For the inclusive finance sector, the takeaway is clear: scaling responsible, digital credit for underserved communities is possible when technology and customer-centricity are combined.

Artificial intelligence (AI) is not a novel concept in finance; so, what is driving renewed interest in addressing regulatory gaps around the technology? A straightforward answer is that the rapid pace of AI developments requires both proactive and adaptive responses from multiple country authorities and intergovernmental bodies. Currently, there are global variations in the scope and approach of existing regulations, as well as in determining what additional aspects should be regulated and how to implement these regulations. 

Many institutions have been following the developments in AI regulation. Standard-setting bodies and international organizations have released regulatory trackers (OECD and EU Commission), readiness indicators (IMF and UNESCO), comprehensive regulatory overviews (FSB, 2024; FSI, 2021, 2024; IAIS, 2023; IMF, 2024; OECD, 2021a, 2021b, 2023, and 2024, and World Bank, 2025), and consultations to financial institutions on use-cases and regulatory constraints (EU Commission, 2024; IAIS, 2024; IOSCO, 2025). 

CGAP identified five key global developments in AI regulation through desk research covering more than a hundred jurisdictions. 

1) AI has become a strategic priority worldwide

By February 2025, at least 116 jurisdictions (see Figure 1) have taken decisive steps to promote AI through national strategies such as India’s #AIforall, the Mexican Agenda AI 2030, Singapore’s NAIS2.0, and Zambia’s AI strategy for job creation. Whether or not these strategies are legally binding, they signal a long-term commitment to leveraging AI for growth, innovation, and productivity. Establishing a time-bound agenda can encourage AI development, deployment, adoption, and regulation in strategic sectors such as agriculture, education, energy, finance, health, industry, and technology.

Figure 1

2) There is no “gold standard” definition of AI 

Standard-setting bodies and authorities conceptualize AI differently 

(see Figure 2). Common features include: (i) the performance of human tasks involving reasoning, learning, and decision-making, and (ii) the ability to collect and interpret vast amounts of information.

Figure 2

3) Hard and soft cross-sectoral regulation coexist 

Hard regulation, or legally binding rules applicable to a wide range of sectors, has been enacted in 31 jurisdictions, including China, the EU, Peru, and South Korea. Some 17 more jurisdictions are proposing a bill or are assessing the need to draft “sector-agnostic” regulation (e.g., Brazil, Ghana, Indonesia, Switzerland, Thailand, and Uruguay – see Figure 3). Enacted regulation spans from generic to specific. For example, the EU, as an early regulatory adopter, established a risk-based approach to ensure trust and human oversight throughout the AI lifecycle, and more broadly on several AI applications. By contrast, China regulates concrete AI applications, which include the introduction of a centralized algorithm registry, requirements to disclose the sources of data training, and specific recommendations for generative AI. 

Figure 3

Similarly, a total of 85 jurisdictions (see Figure 4), including those with binding requirements, have introduced soft regulation (non-binding guidelines such as codes of conduct, or high-level principles). This can be done either through self-regulation (e.g., Australian Watermarking of AI Safety Standard), codes of practice (e.g., Canadian AIDA), or ethical frameworks (e.g., Hong Kong’s Ethical AI Framework). In practice, endorsing benchmarking principles, including those adopted in intergovernmental instances (ASEAN, Bletchley Declaration, G7, G20, OECD, UN, and UNESCO), helps regulators set ethical boundaries without immediately resorting to legislative action. Alternatively, these principles are embedded into law.

Figure 4

4) The ideal governance model for AI oversight is still undetermined 

Given the cross-sectoral nature of AI, governance approaches vary from self-regulation (e.g., Australia’s labeling AI safety standard v2) to dedicated AI agencies and registries (e.g., Peru’s Specialized Authority for AI, China’s Cyberspace Administration-CAC), or the attachment of oversight functions to existing authorities depending on specific use-cases, including financial supervisors and data protection agencies (e.g., Indonesia, Mauritius, the EU). However, the jury is out about which is the optimal governance structure for AI, as it remains context-specific. 

5) Specific guidance for AI applications in finance is still at a nascent stage 

At least 50 jurisdictions (see Figure 5) have released AI-specific guidelines for financial institutions. We identified four types of tools that typically follow a soft approach, except when used to address heavily regulated activities or to ensure compliance with existing rules.

Figure 5

(i) Ethical principles

Principles such as accountability, fairness, soundness, and transparency are increasingly supported by financial authorities. The DNB’s SAFEST, HKMA’s high-level principles on AI, Indonesia’s OJK AI Guideline, Korea’s FSC guideline, and Singapore’s MAS FEAT exemplify ethical boundaries for AI use-cases in finance aligned with national and supranational commitments reported above.

(ii) Targeted consultations

These consultations actively seek feedback from financial institutions with regard to the adoption rate of AI, the exposure to third-party risk, the degree of autonomous decision-making, and potential regulatory barriers and gaps (e.g., Japan’s BoJ, New Zealand’s FMA, Sweeden’s Finansinspektionen, UK’s FCA, U.S. Treasury). Interestingly, these surveys have uncovered the need to harmonize existing regulatory requirements at both national and supranational levels. Specifically, U.S. respondents raised issues with conflicting state laws, while UK firms highlighted differing regulatory practices with the EU that could result in regulatory arbitrage.

(iii) Supervisory views and guidance

Authorities are disclosing their views on opportunities and risks of adopting AI in finance (e.g., Luxembourg, Nigeria) and prioritizing supervisory activities due to emerging contagion and concentration risks (e.g., Austria’s FMA). Efforts are underway to: (i) ensure compliance with existing requirements (e.g., ESMA on AI implications for MiFID II); (ii) clarify how existing rules can be translated into AI-specific features, including model risk due to bias and hallucinations (e.g., Canada, EBA, Germany, Malaysia, and the UK); and (iii) inform financial consumers about the inherent risks of AI-powered tools (e.g., ESMA warning on the use of AI for investing, and FINRA warning on investment fraud using GenAI).

(iv) AI-tailored rules

Mauritius introduced the “Robotic and AI Enabled Advisory License” to oversee providers leveraging AI for automated financial advice. In Colombia, customers receiving automated financial advice can request supplemental financial advice from certified human advisors alongside robo-advice. Qatar also launched AI-tailored rules requiring financial institutions that are using, developing, or deploying AI to strengthen their risk governance frameworks, obtain approvals prior to launching an AI tool, and inform customers on how the decision-making process involving AI may affect them.

Overall, our research suggests that regulations governing the use of AI in finance are still in the early stages 

This could be attributed to three factors: (i) the prevailing consensus around the principle of technology neutrality in financial regulation; (ii) the fact that existing frameworks already address relevant financial and non-financial risks, now potentially amplified by AI; and (iii) the cross-sectoral nature of AI, spanning across multiple regulatory domains. While regulation alone is not a silver bullet to mitigate risks and harness the potential of AI, the financial industry is increasingly seeking guidance on its responsible use. Our next blog in this series builds on this landscaping exercise and looks to inform the discussion on considerations for regulatory authorities looking to effectively govern the usage of AI in finance. 

---

N/A: Includes countries for which we could not find any information online in a searchable format, or cases where information about initiatives released by regulatory authorities is unavailable. In some cases, it also includes jurisdictions where authorities have mentioned their intention to release a strategy or regulation, but there is no formal record of these initiatives. The boundaries, colors, and any other information shown on the map do not imply, on the part of CGAP and the WBG, any judgment on the legal status of any territory or any endorsement or acceptance of such boundaries. 

The global risk landscape is evolving at an unprecedented pace, posing significant threats to attaining the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). As extreme weather, macroeconomic shocks, conflict, and other risks intensify and intertwine, they can create ripple effects that amplify existing vulnerabilities and put both human and development progress in peril. People living in poverty bear the brunt of these crises, which weakens their ability to contribute economically and poses a threat to social stability. Therefore, developing products and services that strengthen their resilience is crucial to getting back on track to meet the SDGs.  

However, despite increasing efforts to build resilience, we still lack a comprehensive understanding of what works, for whom, and in what contexts. Without stronger evidence and impact measurement, resilience strategies risk being ineffective or misaligned with the needs of society.

Through the Financial Inclusion 2.0 initiative, CGAP has explored existing evidence to better understand how financial services can contribute to various development outcomes, including increased resilience. Our findings are encapsulated in the newly launched Impact Pathfinder, a global public good that provides insights into the links between financial services, increased resilience, and development outcomes.  

Inclusive finance is essential for building resilience  

Overall, evidence shows that insurance, credit, digital payments, and savings all play a meaningful role in building the resilience of vulnerable populations and small businesses globally. The Impact Pathfinder examined resilience through a collective 176 studies that paint a strong picture of financial services’ role in enhancing resilience.  

Insurance, credit, digital payments, and savings all play a meaningful role in building the resilience of vulnerable populations and small businesses globally. 

In particular, literature primarily focusing on remittances found a positive link between digital payments and rural households’ and farmers’ ability to better prepare for and absorb climate-related shocks. Digital payments help users build cash reserves or save, providing critical liquidity during crises. For instance, a study in Burkina Faso indicates that mobile money users are more inclined to save for unexpected events compared to non-users.  

Further, digital payments can be more convenient than cash by allowing quicker access to funds from potentially more varied sources, and they also enable greater control, security, and flexibility over funds. A study in Mozambique found that one year after experiencing floods, households with access to mobile money services were 33 percentage points more likely to receive remittances than households without access.  

Insurance can also play an essential role in enabling rural households and farmers to absorb and recover from climate shocks. Insurance payouts can help farming households smooth consumption and avoid negative coping strategies—if certain conditions, like timely payouts, affordable premiums, and payouts covering actual losses, are met. A study from Ghana finds that insurance reduced the rate of missed meals in farming households affected by climate shocks from 23% to 15%. Payouts can also enable farming households to maintain and potentially expand their farmland, as well as increase their use of farming inputs such as fertilizer.  

That said, although insurance can build the resilience of rural households and farmers, its impact on increasing women’s resilience—and ultimately their economic empowerment—is less clear. Significant knowledge gaps remain around the connections between insurance and women’s enhanced resilience, with much of the existing literature focusing on households, rather than women individually. More research is needed to understand how insurance can be a potent tool for enhancing women’s resilience and economic empowerment.  

As for credit, we have explored its impact on resilience in two separate blogs – one on credit and climate resilience and another on credit and resilience of micro- and small enterprises (MSEs).

One size does not fit all

While financial services can play a critical role in resilience-building, their impact depends on how well they are designed and adapted to specific populations and risks. Evidence shows that the same financial tool can be highly effective in one setting but ineffective—or even counterproductive—in another. For example, evidence shows that savings enable women to invest in their businesses, farms, and education, as well as reduce risks through preventative health measures and relevant agricultural technologies.  

In particular, group and community-based savings, such as rotating savings and credit associations (ROSCAs) and village savings and loan associations (VSLAs), are helpful, as they foster social commitment and enable women to pool resources—thus building their resilience. In Kenya, group savings led women to boost their investments in preventative health items such as bed nets, water chlorination products, and ceramic water filters by 66%.  

While financial services can play a critical role in resilience-building, their impact depends on how well they are designed and adapted to specific populations and risks.

However, these same group effects that can support women in increasing their resilience and economic empowerment can backfire in other contexts. Evidence shows that although savings products can encourage rural households to establish regular savings habits and build reserve funds for emergencies if those households experience frequent and compounding shocks, group-based lending models might not work as well. Such circumstances may indeed lead to many group members electing to withdraw savings simultaneously or withdrawing from the group altogether, impacting the group’s ability to save and repay. 

Towards a resilient future for all

There is ample evidence that financial services can increase resilience, and in turn, enable broader development goals. The Impact Pathfinder sheds light on what we know from existing evidence, but this is only the beginning. There are many remaining questions, such as the impact of financial services on recovery from shocks in the longer term and how to tailor specific products, such as insurance, for particular customers, such as women. Addressing these knowledge gaps will increase the positive impact that financial services have on building resilience among vulnerable populations and small businesses.  

Going forward, with the Impact Pathfinder’s findings demonstrating the role that financial services have in increasing the resilience of low-income people and small businesses, it is clear that inclusive finance should be integrated into resilience strategies. The Impact Pathfinder’s insights can be leveraged by financial service providers to design solutions with resilience in mind; by policymakers to consider how inclusive finance supports resilience objectives; and by funders to consider how to channel funding towards inclusive finance to support resilience objectives. By integrating evidence, stakeholders at all levels can better leverage inclusive finance to promote a resilient world for all.