Institute of Studies for the Greater Bay Area/School of Finance, Guangdong University of Foreign Studies; School of Statistics, Beijing Normal University
Summary:
The Central Financial Work Conference in 2023 emphasized advancing five key areas: technology finance, green finance, inclusive finance, pension finance, and digital finance. Among these, inclusive finance serves as a critical tool for achieving common prosperity. Proposed by the United Nations in 2005, Inclusive Finance aims to ensure equitable access to financial services for all. With the rapid advancement of digital technology, digital finance has emerged as a pivotal driver in promoting inclusive finance. China is likely to be the leader of the inclusive finance practices. However, the “Digital Divide” remains a pressing challenge. Based on financial exclusion or credit constraint hypotheses, even if digital technology mitigates collateral deficiencies, resource-constrained low-income households may still face constraint. From a “coverage” perspective, data from the 2019 China Household Finance Survey (CHFS) reveals that only 58.3% of households held third-party digital payment accounts (including internet/mobile payments), rising to 69.5% by 2021. Yet, 40.3% of these accounts had zero balances in 2021, increasing to 43% in 2023. Only 1.1% of households utilized internet loans in 2021, with marginal growth by 2023. The Enterprise Survey for Innovation and Entrepreneurship in China (ESIEC) indicates that 28% of SMEs did not adopt digital payments for procurement, 35% for sales, and less than 6% for payroll, while digital financial borrowing remained limited to 10% in year 2021. Furthermore, the Peking University Digital Finance Inclusive Finance Index shows rapid growth until 2020, followed by a decline to pre-2019 levels post-2021. On the “quality” front, digital inclusive finance faces issues like fraud, asymmetric information, and regulatory gaps. Vulnerable groups lacking digital literacy or computational skills risk insufficient benefits and marginalization despite internet access. Thus, critical questions persist: At what stage is China's digital finance inclusivity？ What barriers hinder its advancement？ This study addresses these gaps through empirical analysis. Using the micro-data from China Household Finance Survey (CHFS 2017-2019), this paper firstly explores digital financial market participation from the perspective of household wealth disparity, providing new evidence for the development of digital finance participation. Results show that lower-wealth households are significantly less likely to enter digital finance markets (online shopping payments, digital investment and credit) than higher-wealth household. The reason is that for low-wealth families, the entry threshold and financial constraints to enter the digital financial market are significantly higher, including digital financial knowledge threshold, equipment threshold, data flow investment and financial constraints. In addition, the evidence of this paper is more inclined to demonstrate that low-wealth families are mainly self-restraint when entering the digital financial market. On the other hand, wealthy families pay more attention to the factors on the digital supply side. The results are still robust after using instrumental variable method, panel fixed effect and multiple threshold standards. The conclusions show that digital finance still cannot completely go beyond the nature of finance and reach all low-wealth families. The objective of this paper is not only to examine the impact of household wealth disparities on the constraints of digital finance, but more critically, to uncover the underlying drivers of the barriers hindering the development of digital inclusive finance. By analyzing from the dual dimensions of service breadth and depth, it aims to explore China's practical experience in addressing the challenges of inclusive finance development. This study seeks to provide micro-level household empirical evidence for a more prudent and precise understanding of the concept of digital inclusive finance. This research yields two key policy implications. First, by advancing technological innovation, upgrading infrastructure, and promoting digital literacy, we can further enhance the accessibility and affordability of digital finance, thereby expanding the breadth of financial inclusion services. Second, regulatory priorities for the digital finance market should focus on regulating market activities, strengthening data security, and other related areas to ensure that suppliers in the digital finance market operate in a healthy, orderly, and standardized manner. By ensuring compliance in the operations of digital finance suppliers, improving the service quality of digital financial products, deepening the depth of inclusive financial services, and encouraging broader participation from wealthier households in the digital finance market, we can ultimately promote the development of inclusive finance. This paper may engage with and contribute to the literature of following fields. Theoretically, our results show that the financial constraints hypothesis exists in the digital finance market. This paper compares the differences in household wealth distribution between participants and non-participants of digital finance, examines the exclusionary characteristics of digital finance, verifies whether digital finance has achieved full inclusivity, and explores the underlying drivers of barriers preventing households across different wealth strata from participating in digital finance markets. Empirically, by differentiating the impacts of digital payment, digital investment, and digital credit on households and employing the instrumental variable approach, it accurately establish the causal relationship between household wealth and digital finance, as well as analyze the underlying mechanisms. Moreover, the paper attempts to disentangle the digital finance constraints faced by households from both demand-side and supply-side.Specifically, the demand-side factors include digital knowledge or market access thresholds and funding constraints, and supply-side factors include data security, and attributes of digital financial products. This not only serves as an important supplement to existing literature on financial constraints but also holds practical significance, providing reference for policy making by relevant authorities.
[1]陈元, 2020,《信用与资本——开发性金融研究》,《金融研究》第4期,第1～10页。 [2]邓辛和彭嘉欣,2023,《基于移动支付的数字金融服务能为非正规就业者带来红利吗？——来自码商的微观证据》,《管理世界》第6期,第16～33+70+34~43页。 [3]傅秋子和黄益平,2018,《数字金融对农村金融需求的异质性影响——来自中国家庭金融调查与北京大学数字普惠金融指数的证据》,《金融研究》 第11期,第68～84页。 [4]郭峰、王靖一、王芳、孔涛、张勋和程志云, 2020,《 测度中国数字普惠金融发展:指数编制与空间特征》,《经济学(季刊)》第4期,第1401～1418页。 [5]何宗樾和宋旭光, 2020,《 数字经济促进就业的机理与启示——疫情发生之后的思考》,《经济学家》 第5期,第58～68页。 [6]何宗樾、张勋和万广华,2020,《数字金融,数字鸿沟与多维贫困》,《统计研究》第10期,第79～89页。 [7]黄益平和黄卓,2018,《中国的数字金融发展:现在与未来》,《经济学(季刊)》第4期,第1489～1502页。 [8]李焰、高弋君、李珍妮、才子豪、王冰婷和杨宇轩,2014,《借款人描述性信息对投资人决策的影响——基于P2P网络借贷平台的分析》,《经济研究》第S1期,第143～155页。 [9]孙玉环、张汀昱、王雪妮和李丹阳, 2021,《中国数字普惠金融发展的现状,问题及前景》,《数量经济技术经济研究》第2期,第43～59页。 [10]田鸽和张勋,2022,《 数字经济、非农就业与社会分工》,《管理世界》第5期,第72～84页。 [11]王修华和赵亚雄,2020,《数字金融发展是否存在马太效应？——贫困户与非贫困户的经验比较》,《金融研究 》第7期,第114～133页。 [12]吴雨、李成顺、李晓和弋代春,2020,《数字金融发展对传统私人借贷市场的影响及机制研究》,《管理世界》第10期,第53～64+138+65页。 [13]谢绚丽、沈艳、张皓星和郭峰,2018,《数字金融能促进创业吗？——来自中国的证据》,《经济学(季刊)》第4期,第1557～1580页。 [14]徐丽鹤和袁燕,2017,《财富分层,社会资本与农户民间借贷的可得性》,《金融研究》第2期,第131～146页。 [15]易行健和周利,2018,《数字普惠金融发展是否显著影响了居民消费——来自中国家庭的微观证据》,《金融研究》第11期,第47～67页。 [16]尹志超和仇化, 2019,《金融知识对互联网金融参与重要吗》,《财贸经济》第6期,第70 ～84页。 [17]尹志超、宋全云和吴雨, 2014,《金融知识、投资经验与家庭资产选择》,《经济研究》第4期,第62～75页。 [18]战明华、汤颜菲和李帅,2020,《 数字金融发展,渠道效应差异和货币政策传导效果》,《经济研究》第6期,第22～38页。 [19]赵亚雄和王修华,2022,《数字金融、家庭相对收入及脆弱性——兼论多维“鸿沟”的影响》,《金融研究》第10期,第77～97页。 [20]张号栋和尹志超, 2016,《金融知识和中国家庭的金融排斥——基于CHFS数据的实证研究》,《金融研究》 第7期,第80～95页。 [21]张海洋, 2017,《融资约束下金融互助模式的演进——从民间金融到网络借贷》,《金融研究》第3期,第101～115页。 [22]张勋、万广华和吴海涛, 2021,《缩小数字鸿沟:中国特色数字金融发展》,《中国社会科学》第8期,第35～51+204～205页。 [23]张勋、万广华、张佳佳和何宗樾, 2019,《数字经济,普惠金融与包容性增长》,《经济研究》第8期,第71～86页。 [24]周天芸和陈铭翔, 2021,《数字渗透、金融普惠与家庭财富增长》,《财经研究》第7期,第33～47页。 [25]Behrman, J. R., O. S. Mitchell, C. K. Soo and D. Bravo, 2012, “How Financial Literacy Affects Household Wealth Accumulation”, American Economic Review, 102(3),pp.300 ～304. [26]Dohmen, T., A .Falk, D. Huffman and U. Sunde, 2010, “Are Risk Aversion and Impatience Related to Cognitive Ability？”, American Economic Review, 100(3),pp.1238～1260. [27]Guellec, D. and C. Paunov, 2017, “Digital Innovation and the Distribution of Income”, NBER Working Paper, No. 23987. [28]Li, J., Y. Wu and J. J. Xiao, 2020, “The Impact of Digital Finance on Household Consumption: Evidence from China”, Economic Modelling, 86, pp.317～326.
