A clear example is M-Pesa in Kenya, a mobile-money intervention that reduces inequality in access to financial services. This is an HL-only example for the global well-being challenge topic, specifically local and global inequalities.
System: M-Pesa is a digital payment system operated by Safaricom. It allows users to deposit, store, transfer and withdraw money using mobile phones and a network of local agents, without requiring a conventional bank account.
Example specifics: M-Pesa was launched in Kenya in 2007 by Safaricom, with technology developed by Vodafone. It expanded financial access among people underserved by traditional banks, particularly rural households, low-income workers and small businesses. Users can receive wages, send remittances and pay for goods through basic mobile phones.
Impacts and implications: M-Pesa has enabled many households to receive money quickly during emergencies and has supported small-scale economic activity. Research published by Suri and Jack in 2016 associated access to M-Pesa with reduced extreme poverty among Kenyan households, with particularly significant benefits for female-headed households.
However, access remains unequal. Users need a mobile device, network coverage, identification and enough money to pay transaction fees. Fraud, service outages and Safaricom's market power also create risks. The intervention therefore mitigates financial inequality and enhances access, but does not resolve the structural causes of poverty.
The example shows how power can shift from banks towards users and a private platform. It also illustrates systems, because agents, telecommunications infrastructure, regulation and users are interdependent. Questions of affordability, privacy and fair access bring values and ethics into the evaluation.
Exam technique: In an HL Paper 3 response, identify M-Pesa as the intervention, explain how the digital system operates, and evaluate it using criteria such as equity, cost, feasibility and acceptability. Avoid the misconception that successful adoption proves inequality has been solved. A strong answer weighs benefits against exclusion risks and recommends practical improvements, such as lower fees, stronger consumer protection and expanded rural coverage.
