Financial Literacy Research Roundup: October 5, 2026

In the past decade, digital lending has become central to a new developmental imaginary in India. The introduction of the Digital Public Infrastructure (DPI) approach in India has been narrativized as a revolutionary feat, drawing praise from international institutions and private sector alike. The rollout of these state-promoted platforms for identification, payments, and data sharing is said to be creating new possibilities for micro-entrepreneurship and market participation, lifting the poor out of poverty. Yet in reality, digital lending’s reach among women is limited, and instead its main market is among men. In this article, we ask: why, despite the developmental claims and ambitions of DPI, does the reality of digital lending in India remain limited in reaching women? The paper compares digital lending with two earlier “financial inclusion assemblages”, public banking and microfinance to identify how each organizes credit, whom it reaches, and what kinds of social futures it imagines. It finds that the limited reach of digital lending among women reflects not a limitation of digitalisation itself, but rather a mismatch between the architecture of DPI-enabled digital lending and the needs of women and other marginalized communities. Addressing these failures, the paper concludes, requires a significant realignment of the role of DPI in relation to digital lending. Problems of reach and access are reframed as issues of structure and conditions of access.

The paper presents the results of a meta-analysis of empirical literature focused on the study of behavioral biases in financial decision-making. The findings indicate that biases such as loss aversion, present bias, status quo bias, overconfidence, and herding systematically shape both individual and collective financial behavior. Their influence is evident across diverse institutional and cultural contexts, confirming that behavioral deviations are structural rather than incidental features of economic behavior. The study highlights the need to integrate longitudinal and neuroeconomic approaches to achieve a deeper understanding of the interaction between cognitive, emotional, and contextual factors in decision-making processes. By incorporating psychological dimensions into economic theory, behavioral economics provides a more comprehensive and realistic framework for interpreting market dynamics and enhancing the quality of financial decision-making.

This paper examines the effect of alternative digital lending—defined as digital credit provision by non‑bank financial intermediaries (NBFIs)—on bank and systemic risk taking and competition. The paper focuses on Sociedades Financieras Populares (SOFIPOs) which constitute a regulated and well‑documented NBFI segment allowing an empirical assessment of the relationship between digital non-bank lending expansion and bank outcomes. Using a quarterly sample of 53 Mexican banks and 8 of these non-banks for the period 2018Q1–2024Q4, we document that growth in alternative digital lending is associated with lower individual bank risk-taking and stronger competitive pressures, with the latter effect being stronger for small banks. Reflecting the moderate size of digital lenders in Mexico and the compositional reallocation between bank and non‑bank credit, overall systemic risk appears broadly unaltered by the entry of the new players.

We compile data from 2.4 million economics and personal finance module assignments completed by 513, 000 K-12 students on an educational online platform. We exploit variation in the order in which these students complete the modules–economics or personal finance first– to estimate directional spillovers. The spillover runs one way. Controlling for school demographics, students who take economics first score 3.42 points higher on personal finance post-tests; taking personal finance first raises economics post-tests by 0.15 points on the same specification. A placebo using exposure that occurs after the outcome puts the return at 0.8 to 1.4 points per pre-treatment module. The advantage does not shrink as the gap between subjects grows, and it is largest in raw points for lower-performing students, 5.1 compared with 1.6, though mostly because higher-performing students sit at the test ceiling. Economics appears to supply foundational concepts that personal finance does not. When both subjects are taught, the order matters: economics first is the better order, and one or two economics modules capture most of the available gain.

This research examines whether Stocks and Shares Individual Savings Accounts (S&S ISAs) in the United Kingdom democratise wealth accumulation or reinforce existing socioeconomic disparities. Using longitudinal data from the Wealth and Asset Survey (2006-2020), the study employs multiple analytical approaches, with propensity score matching providing the most credible causal estimates. The findings reveal three key patterns: First, S&S ISA ownership is associated with approximately 27% higher wealth growth compared to similar non-owners. Second, adopting an S&S ISA generates substantial wealth benefits (227% for new adopters) that persist even after abandonment, with former ISA holders showing no significant disadvantage compared to never-owners. Third, contrary to expectations, S&S ISAs provide greater relative benefits for individuals without higher education, challenging assumptions that tax-efficient investment vehicles primarily benefit the already-advantaged. These results suggest that S&S ISAs can function as effective wealth-building tools with democratising potential if barriers to initial adoption among disadvantaged groups can be addressed. The study contributes to literature on wealth inequality and asset-based welfare by providing empirical evidence on the distributional effects of investment-based policy instruments within a liberal welfare regime.