What to do when donor and member priorities diverge? 

Throughout the first 15 years of AFI’s existence, we have benefited from the support of partners and funders. If our members enjoy an extensive (and expanding) range of services, it’s because the funding we receive from third parties allows it. 

We have been lucky, in the sense that our donors have been ‘like-minded’ – they have viewed financial inclusion as a priority. But recently, some members have shared concerns with me that financial inclusion might lose its attractiveness to donors. 

If this were to happen, what would it mean for AFI?  

Before answering that, let us explore where donor and member perspectives may diverge. 

Donors tend to emphasize the development angle of financial inclusion. And they are not mistaken. As I wrote in a previous column, investing in financial inclusion has proven a cost-effective and efficient way to accelerate progress on a wide spectrum of the 2030 Agenda.   

Over the last 15 years, Central Bank mandates have evolved. Our members have seen the relevance of financial inclusion for development, and recognized it as an opportunity to strengthen their core objectives of delivering monetary and financial stability – as a complementary, rather than a competing, priority.  By embedding financial inclusion into the core mandate of financial regulators, it has become a long-term policy objective. 

 Donors, particularly in the development space, typically seek opportunities to spark progress. To generate breakthroughs, often through new approaches or new fields of activity.  

This is laudable. But it creates a danger if your focus is not perceived as ‘new’, or ‘novel’.  

Let me cite an example from a different sector. 

Do you know what the world’s most deadly infectious disease is?  

It’s not HIV/AIDS, or COVID. It’s tuberculosis, which kills over a million people a year – every year.  Most people don’t know this. TB is what the World Health Organization calls a ‘neglected’ disease. In Europe and North America, TB is seen as something from the past. The consequence is that a disease generating massive fatalities is experiencing a massive funding gap. 

The danger for any mission-driven organization is that, regardless of the situation on the ground, their cause becomes similarly ‘neglected’ by donors. 

Conscious of this risk, AFI is taking steps to ensure that our work to expand access and use of safe, convenient and affordable financial services to those who would otherwise be excluded or marginalized (in other words, our focus on inclusivity) will continue, regardless of shifting donor interests. 

We are actively exploring the feasibility of obtaining Intergovernmental (as opposed to International) Organization status, with the view of strengthening AFI’s long-term sustainability. 

Equally, we are looking to diversify our funder base, notably to encompass like-minded funding partners, including philanthropic funders. 

‘Like-minded’ here does not mean that a funder agrees with AFI that financial inclusion is important. It means they agree with us that it will always be important as the mandate of our members is of a permanent nature. 

Those are the partners we are seeking, those who share our view that financial inclusion is not ‘trendy’ but perennial. And who share our determination to keep working until exclusion has been eradicated, once and for all.