Beyond Account Access: Converting Financial Inclusion into Resilience

Financial inclusion has achieved remarkable success over the past decade. In low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) account ownership has nearly doubled – from 42% of adults in 2011 to 75% today. This expansion represents hundreds of millions of people gaining their first formal financial foothold.

Yet beneath this impressive headline lies a troubling reality: financial resilience remains stubbornly low. According to The Global Findex Database 2025, only 56% of adults in LMICs can access emergency funds within 30 days (defined as 5% of their country's gross national income per capita) — a figure unchanged since 2021. This persistent gap between access to financial services and resilience reveals a fundamental truth: having a bank account and having financial resilience are very different things.  

Building on our previous blog on how the Global Findex measures financial health, we examine what the latest Findex data reveals about the contribution of financial services to resilience and reflect on implications for the sector moving forward. 

The resilience paradox: When similar access yields different outcomes

The Global Findex Database 2025 reveals striking regional disparities in financial resilience that can't be explained by account ownership alone. Consider East Asia and Pacific (EAP) versus South Asia (SA): both regions have achieved similar levels of account ownership (83% and 78%, respectively), yet their resilience outcomes of being able to access emergency funds are significantly different.  

In EAP, 78% of adults can access emergency funds within 30 days when a crisis strikes. In SA, that figure is just 31% (Figure 1) – less than half the rate in EAP despite nearly identical account penetration. This stark contrast points to an important insight: account ownership is necessary but not sufficient for financial resilience. 

Figure 1. Account ownership, financial resilience and financial products usage in EAP and SA 

The usage dividend: How a range of financial services drives resilience  

What explains this dramatic difference? One important answer lies in how people use financial services. Findex data reveals that EAP adults engage with a broader and deeper ecosystem of financial services: 

• Digital payments as lifelines. Evidence from CGAP’s Impact Pathfinder shows that digital payments serve as the backbone of financial resilience. When emergencies strike family and friends remain the most common source of support – but digital systems determine how quickly and reliably that help can flow. EAP leads globally with 80% of adults making or receiving payments, compared to just 55% in SA. This infrastructure advantage transforms social networks from potential support systems into financial safety nets.  
• Insurance: The shield against shocks. Insurance represents perhaps the starkest regional divide. While 41% of EAP adults paid an insurer, only 9% of SA adults did the same. Although the Findex doesn’t differentiate between insurance products, the protective value is clear: insurance is an essential financial service to support people mitigating and recovering from shocks, and building resilience.
• Strategic borrowing for emergencies. Credit can help people when they need cash for big expenses or investments. In LMICs, 24% of people borrowed formally in 2024. EAP is the region with the highest level of formal borrowing, while SA has the lowest level. Credit can also provide important emergency support when used strategically. Across LMICs, 20% of adults borrowed for health reasons in 2024. While most emergency borrowing happens informally, EAP is the only region where most borrowing for emergencies happens through formal channels. EAP is also the region with the lowest level of borrowing for health reasons.
• The savings accessibility gap. Here lies perhaps the most important insight. Formal savings rates tell only part of the story. While 40% of LMIC adults saved formally in 2024 (up from 24% in 2021), the ability to access those savings when needed varies dramatically. In EAP, 32% of adults can draw on savings during emergencies, compared to just 8% in SA. This suggests that liquid, accessible savings products matter more than savings rates alone.  

The comparison between EAP and SA suggests that the use of multiple financial services can contribute to financial resilience.  

Building financial resilience beyond financial services

However, the relationship between financial service usage and financial resilience is not necessarily straightforward (Figure 2) – suggesting that other factors also play a role in building resilience. 

Figure 2. Financial resilience and product usage across regions 

The Findex data hints at – but does not comprehensively investigate – broader social and economic factors that shape financial resilience outcomes. Twenty percent of adults in LMICs rely on extra work as an emergency fund source, for example, highlighting how employment opportunities, economic stability and social safety nets all influence whether people can build and maintain financial resilience.

The path forward: From access to resilience

The Findex data sends a clear message: while account ownership has expanded significantly, an alarmingly high number of adults in LMICs remain vulnerable to financial shocks. The data suggests three important priorities: 

1. Prioritize active usage over account ownership: Financial service providers must move beyond acquisition metrics to focus on driving meaningful engagement. This means designing products that meet real needs and integrating seamlessly into people's daily financial lives. An unused account provides no resilience value.
2. Build accessible, flexible savings products: Given that withdrawable savings represent the most reliable emergency funding source, providers should prioritize products that balance growth with accessibility. This includes low-fee accounts, simplified withdrawal processes, and features that encourage regular deposits while maintaining emergency liquidity.
3. Strengthen rather than replacing social networks: Since family and friends remain primary sources of emergency support, digital payment systems should enhance these existing networks rather than compete with them. This means building infrastructure that makes peer-to-peer transfers faster, cheaper, and more reliable. 

Measuring what matters: The call for outcome-focused finance

CGAP calls for - and is partnering to create - inclusive financial strategies and financial health measurement guidance that focus on real outcomes that benefit people. This means moving beyond account ownership as the primary metric of success and towards designing and measuring financial products and services that demonstrably improve people's ability to weather financial shocks, maximize opportunities, and improve their overall wellbeing.