Mobile2.0:m‐moneyfortheBOPinthePhilippines
ErwinAlampay1andGemmaBala
LIRNEasia
TableofContentsIntroduction........................................................................................................................................... 2Mmoney and remittances ........................................................................................................................... 2
Expanding use of mmoney to the BOP in the Philippines ..................................................... 4Mental Access ................................................................................................................................................... 6Material Access ..............................................................................................................................................11Skills Access ....................................................................................................................................................12
Conclusions .............................................................................................................................................13Business Challenges .....................................................................................................................................13Policy issues....................................................................................................................................................14
References ............................................................................................................................................15
ThisresearchwascarriedoutaspartoftheMobile2.0projectofLIRNEasia(www.lirneasia.net)andwasfundedthroughagrantfromtheInternationalDevelopmentResearchCenter(Canada)andtheDepartmentforInternationalDevelopment(UK)
1Dr.AlampayisaResearchFellowatLIRNEasiaandanAssociateProfessorintheNationalCollegeofPublicAdministrationandGovernanceintheUniversityofthePhilippines
IntroductionThepotentialofelectronicbanking(e‐banking)andelectronicmoney(e‐money)2toimprove
efficiencies,reducetransactionalcostsandbringnewopportunitieshaslongbeenrecognized(Basel,1998).Greaterinteresthasbeengeneratedwithnewformsofe‐moneythatistransmittedwiththeaidofmobilephones.
InterestintheareaofICTandDevelopmentfieldiswithreachingtheunbanked,andpeopleatthebottomofthepyramid(BOP).Thisincludesthepotentialtoprovidethemwithbanking‐relatedservicesthroughmobilebanking(m‐banking)3andmobilemoney(m‐money)4(Soriano&Barbin2007;Bångens&Söderberg,2008),whichcanbedonebycapitalizingontherapiddiffusionofmobilephonesamongsocialnetworksincludingtheBOP(Zainudeen,2008).Theunbankedrequireefficientutilizationofvaryingsourcesofcashinflows.Livingoffacash‐basedeconomy,theyreceiveirregularincomefromoccasionaljobs,farmproduce,and“welfare”(Bångens&Söderberg,2008).Theirlimitedaccesstoestablishedfinancialchannelsexposesthemtofinancialrisksandlesssecuretransactions.
Amongtheirvariousincomeflows,remittancescouldbethedriverform‐moneyusageamongtheBOP.Onefactoristhelargeflowofmoneygoingthroughremittancechannelsthatimplyasteadycustomerbase.TheWorldBankestimatesthatthevalueofremittancesin2008wasUS$305billionworldwide(BSP,2009a)whichwereoftencoursedthroughvariousmoneytransferoutfits(MTO)(55%marketshare)andWesternUnion(25%marketshare)5(GSMA,2008).AnotherconsiderationisBOPphonesubscriberswhosendremittancesthroughcostlychannels,andtheuseofmobilephonesprovidesalesscostlyalternativewithaddedvalue.Thenextsectionelaboratesonthesepossibilities.
M‐moneyandremittances
Therearemanyreasonsform‐moneyserviceproviderstogetintotheremittancemarket.Oneisthatremittancesarerelativelystableevenduringeconomicslowdownincontrasttootherinvestmentforms.Second,theyarealsoexpectedtocontinuetoincreaseasaconsequenceofglobalization‐inducedlabormigration(Maimbo&Ratha,2005).ThesearesupportedbyanADBstudyin2005where,contrary
2“E‐moneyshallmeanmonetaryvalueasrepresentedbyaclaimonitsissuer,thatis‐(a)electronicallystoredinaninstrumentordevice;(b)issuedagainstreceiptoffundsofanamountnotlesserinvaluethanthemonetaryvalueissued;(c)acceptedasameansofpaymentbypersonsorentitiesotherthantheissuer;(d)withdrawableincashorcashequivalent;and(e)issuedinaccordancewiththiscircular.”Circular649,Sec.2(BSP2009b:1)Forthepurposesofthispaper,m‐moneyshallrefertoaformofe‐moneytransmittedthroughmobilephones.3Distinction ismadebetweenelectronicbankingandmobilebankingas the former refers to“theprovisionof smallbankingproducts through electronic channels” (Basel 1998:3) while the latter offers financial services through mobile networks inmobilephones(BångensandSöderberg2008)4Mobilemoneycanalsorefer to“services thatconnectconsumers financially throughmobile.Mobilemoneyallows foranymobilesubscriber–whetherbankedorunbanked–todepositvalueintotheirmobileaccount,sendvalueviaasimplehandsettoanothermobilesubscriber,andallowtherecipienttoturnthatvaluebackintocasheasilyandcheaply”MobileMoneyfortheUnbanked2009Annualreport,page75fromFigure5“EstimatedMarketShareofInternationalPerson‐to‐PersonTransferServices(bynumberoftransactionsprocessed)”oftheGSMA(2008)study
totheconceptofremittancedecay,internationalremittancessentbyFilipinosandotherSoutheastAsianmigrantshaveremainedconstantovertime,regardlessoftheirlengthofstayoverseas.InthePhilippines,increasedremittanceflowsareexpectedtocorrespondtothatofincreasingnumbersofoverseasforeignworkers(Nakanishi,2009)asapproximately$16Billionwasremittedfromabroadin2008(Bird,2009).
Mostoftheseinternationalremittanceswereconcentratedtourbanareaswhilemostofmoneyflowsgoingtoruralareasarelocaltransfers(fromurbanareas)(Pangilinan,2007).ThisisexplainedbyAng(2007)whorevealsthatmostOverseasFilipinoWorkers(OFWs)comefromregionswithlowerpovertyrates,namelyRegionsI,III,IV,VI,XIandNCR,implyingthatpoorpeoplearelesstomigratetoothercountries(PerniainAng,2007).Thissuggeststhatbetweeninternationalanddomesticremittances,itisthedomesticremittancesthatwouldbemorerelevanttotheBOP. Hence, whilethepotentialform‐moneyservicesincludesthemovementofmoneyfrommigrantcountriestohomecountries,moresignificanttotheBOPwouldbethemovementofmoneyfromtheseeminglyrichurbanareastopoorerregionsinruralareas.
Inmovingmoney,sendersseekthemostaffordableandconvenientchannel.Further,theimportanceofphysicalinfrastructuresmaydiminishasmoremoneytransferoutfitsconsidernewtechnologies,suchastheinternetandmobilephones,asalternativechannels(ADB,2004).Thisnewlandscapehasmadem‐moneyaviableoptiontoconsider.CaseinpointareFilipinomigrantswhosehighSMSusage(ADB,2005)hasbeencapitalizedonbytelecomcompaniesandbankstooffermobile‐basedfinancialservicesincludingm‐money.Notwithstandingtheirpreferenceforexistingformalandinformalchannels6,theyuseSMStoinformtheirrecipientsoftheirremittance.
Whilethereisgrowingresearchintheuseofmobilephonesforfinancialservices,attentionhasbeenmainlyonapplicationdesignandadoption,andissuesrelatingtofinancialneedsandthemeasurementofimpactshavebeencomparativelyneglected(Duncombe&Boateng,2009). Hence,thenextpartofthispaperwilllookatm‐moneyinnovationsinthePhilippinestotapthehugeremittancemarketandwhatitmeansfortheBOP.ThepaperappliesVanDijk’s(2006)StagesofAccesstoDigitalTechnologiestothepotentialadoptionanduseofm‐moneyforremittanceamongtheBOP(seeFigure1).ThediscussionisbasedontheresultstakenfromLIRNEasia’[email protected].’s2009Teleuse@BOP3:AQualitativeStudy8BusinessandpolicyrecommendationsarethengivenonhowtoexpandaccessanduseofmobilemoneyforremittanceamongtheBOP.
6Formalchannels:banks,non‐banksandmoneytransferagencies/remittanceagenciesInformalchannels:courierservice/door‐to‐doorandhandcarriedcashbroughthomebyrelativesorfriends(Maimbo&Ratha,2005)7Thesurveywasconductedinsixcountrieswithanaimtoenable“morepeopleattheBOPtojointheinformationsociety”.(LIRNEasia,2008:4)InthePhilippines,ithad800respondentsnationwidewhobelongtoSECE.Thissamplehad,onaverage,ahouseholdmonthlyincomeof126USD,fourhouseholdmembersandonemobilephoneperhousehold.Therespondentscamefromurbanandruralareas,andarethosewhohaveusedaphone(regardlessiftheyownitornot)intheprecedingthreemonthsofthesurvey.8ThisstudycomplementstheTeleuse@BOP3surveyfindingsandwasconductedinthesamesixcountries.ThePhilippinesampleconsistsoffourrespondentsfromtheurbanarea(MetroManila)andthreerespondentsfromtheruralarea(SanFernando,Pampanga).Bothgroupshaveonerespondentwhoisaninternalmigrantorwhoisrelatedtoamigrantworker.
Figure1:Stagesofaccesstom‐moneyforremittance
Inapplyingtheframework,thisstudylookedatthreeissuesthattheBOPhastoovercomeinordertousem‐moneyforremittance:MentalAccess,MaterialAccess,andSkillsAccess.DataforthiswasbasedonsurveysthatLIRNEasiaconductedin2008andqualitativeinvestigationsin2009.
MentalaccesslooksattheBOP’sinterestinusingm‐moneyandtheirawarenessthatremittancescanalreadybesentthroughmobilephones.Forserviceprovidersandpolicymakers,itisimportanttoknowthefactorsthatmotivatetheuseofthesealternativesvis‐à‐visthetraditionalwaysofremittingmoney.
Asdemandfortheserviceisestablished,thenextissuesfortheBOParesecuringthenecessarymaterialsandskillsform‐money.Crucialwouldbemobilephoneownership,theaccessibilityofservicesupportstructures,therequiredskillsandthemannerofobtainingthem.MaterialaccesswouldbebasedonpeopleattheBOP’saccesstomobilephonesthatcanusem‐money.Itwouldincludeitsaffordabilityandtheavailabilityoftheservice(andsupportinginfrastructure)inallareas.Thesupportinginfrastructurewouldincludefacilitiesforenrollingintheservice,andcashingoutmoney.
Skillsaccessidentifiesthecapabilityofpeopletosendm‐money.Sincetheprocessissimilartotextingabilitiesandexperiencewithe‐loading,people’scapabilitiestoSMSandpassloadsareimportantmeasures.
Lastly,adescriptionoftheircurrentusagewillillustratethefactorsnecessaryinexpandinguptakeandregularuse.Thisincludesdeterminingwhousesm‐money,forwhatpurpose,andhowmuchandhowoften.Withitsuse,howcantrustinthesystembeenhanced?
Fromthese,thepaperwillthendiscussthebusinesschallengesandpolicyconsiderationsinofferingm‐moneyanditsinnovations.Theseconsiderationsarerelevantforeverystage,especiallyinintroducinginnovationsforincreasingusageamongtheBOP.
Expandinguseofm‐moneytotheBOPinthePhilippines Twokindsofm‐moneyplatformsarepresentlyavailableinthePhilippines:SMARTMoneyand
GlobeGCash.Introducedin2001,SMARTMoneyisissuedbytheBancodeOro(BDO)UniversalBank,inpartnershipwithSMARTTelecom.Itisadebitcard(pre‐paidcard),whichcanbeaccessedusingan
automatictellermachine(ATM),acreditcardterminaloramobilephone.GCash,ontheotherhand,wasintroducedin2004byGlobeTelecomanditsfully‐ownedsubsidiary,GXI9Incorporated.GCashfunctionsasanelectronicmoneytransferfacilitythatturnsamobilephoneintoanelectronicwallet.
Despitetheabsenceofcomparablefigureswithrespecttom‐moneyusage,anindicationofusecanbeseenfromthenumberofregisteredusers,thevalueoftransactionshandled,andtheamountofrevenuegeneratedfromtheservice.Forinstance,in2007,GlobeTelecomincreaseditsGCashuserbaseto1.4MGCashfrom1.2Mthepreviousyear(Globe2008b:61).Attheendofthesameyear,theywerealreadyhandlinganaveragemonthlytransactionvalueofaroundP6.23billion(Globe2008b:65).SMART,ontheotherhand,wasabletogeneratePhp41MinrevenuefromSMARTMoneyalone(PLDT2008b:40).Moreover,thetotalvalueofremittancessentin2006usingSMARTMoneywasalreadyaroundUS$28.9millionfromabroad,whilewithinthecountryitwasUS$113.7million(Proenza2007).
Thisincomeandincreaseinuserbasemaybeduetovariousapplicationswithwhichm‐moneycanbetransacted.WithGCashorSMARTMoney,consumerscanalreadypurchasegoodsandservicesover‐the‐counterorremotely,payutilitybills,purchaseairtimecreditsandsendinternationalanddomesticmobileremittance(m‐remittance)(Proenza,2007,Mendes,et.al2007).IthasevenleadtoaFilipino‐versionofe‐commercethatcombinesuseofonlinesocialnetworksthatarecompletedwithm‐moneytransactions(Alampay2008).Whilethisreflectsthetransactiondemandform‐moneyandm‐banking,Proenza(2007)explainsthatthedemandhasstillbeenpredominantlyfromhighincomeurbandwellerslargelybecausetheyareeasiertoreach.
Thechallengethenistoexpandm‐moneyusagetolowerincome,ruraldwellers,inparticular,usersfromtheBOP.Ifitistousethetechnologyforremittances,thepotentialdemandcouldbefrompeoplewhohaverelativesworkingabroadorpeoplewhohavemigratedinternallytootherregionsinthecountry.
InasurveyoftheBOPthatLIRNEasiaconductedin2008(n=800),9%hadrelativesworkingabroadand13%hadmigratedinternallytootherregionsofthecountry.Ofthem,61%sentmoney10(n=172workingabroad)(LIRNEasia2008),whileamajority(71%,n=74;55%,n=103respondentswhohavefamilymembersworkingawayfromhome)receivedfinancialsupportonamonthlybasis.Chancesare,aconsiderablenumberstillusetraditionalremittancechannels.AccordingtotheNSO(2007)ofremittancessent,77%arecoursedthroughbanks,14%throughdoor‐to‐doorservices,and9.2%aresentinformallythroughtheagency,localofficers,friends,co‐workersorothermeans.MorerecentreportsfromtheBSPsaysthatthenumberofFilipinoswhosendthroughinformalchannelshavebeengoingdownandestimatesthistobeonly5%in2008(Gonzales,2009).
Giventhis,howcanpeopleattheBOPbeconvincedabouttheadvantagesofusingm‐money,insteadofthetraditionalandinformalmethodsmentioned?
9GXIisregisteredwiththeBSPasaMoneyTransferOutfit/RemittanceAgent,whichfallsunderthethirdclassificationofe‐moneyissuers(EMI‐others)recognizedbytheBSP.Theothertwotypesare:(1)abankand(2)anon‐bankfinancialinstitutionrecognizedbytheBSP(BSP,2009b)10TheaverageamountsentamongFilipinoOFWsis$90permonth,accordingto58%oftherespondentswhohavehouseholdmembersworkingabroad.
MentalAccess
AlmostaquarteroftheBOP(23%,n=800)werefoundinLIRNEasia’ssurveytobeawarethatfinancialandbankingservicescanbeaccessedthroughmobilephones,and41%ofthemknewsendingorreceivingmoneythroughICTswaspossible.Moreover,38%whowereunawareoftheservice(n=469)expressedinterestinusingm‐moneytransfers(LIRNEasia2008).
However,theBOP’sreasonsfornotusingpaymentsthroughtelephonesorcomputers(seeTable1)reflectbarrierstosubsequentusageofm‐money.Forexample,1%and4%ofthosewhowereawareofsuchservicesbutdidnotusethemsuggestachallengeofovercomingmotivationtochange.
Table1:Reasonsfornotusingpaymentservicesoverthetelephoneorcomputer
Reason %(n=294)Idonotknowhowtouseit 56It’snotapplicabletome 16Idonotownatelephoneorcomputer 10Mytelephonedoesnothavethatcapability 9Itistooexpensive 9Thesearenotreliable/trustworthy 4Iamsatisfiedwithmypresentmodeofobtainingsuchservice.
1
LIRNEasiaSurvey(2008)11
Fewoftherespondentsactuallyhadissueswithm‐money’strustworthiness(4%)(seeTable1),whichcouldhavebeenafactorintheirdecisiontonottrythemobilechannel.TheirtrustmayhavetodowithFilipinos’highuseofSMSande‐loadingwhichmakesthemhighlyexposedtoelectronicexchanges.Theirexperiencehasbeenverypositiveasreflectedintheirhightrustratingofe‐loading(4.63)12inthesurvey(LIRNEasia2008).ThishightrustmakesthePhilippinemarketfeasibleform‐moneyservices,astheconceptoftransferringinformationandmonetaryvaluesaresomewhatsimilar.
Thebiggerchallengeisexplaininghowitactuallyworks,andthebenefitsthatcouldbegainedbyusingthetechnology.Inthecaseofremittances,respondentsfromFGDsperceivethatthedifferentandofteninformalwaysofsendingmoneyaremoretrustworthythantheirownabilitytosendm‐money.Theinvestigationalsorevealsthatyoungerpeoplearemoreinterestedinm‐moneythanthoseolderthan35yearsofage(CKS2009).
Collectively,respondentswereopentousingsuchaservice,butsaidthey“willneedtoseetheservicedoverywell,proveitsreliability,havetoberecommendedbytheirsocialnetworksandcompetitivelypricedforthemtouseit.”(CKS2009).Thisissimilartotheconcernsforsendingmoneyhome‐‐securityofthetransaction(thatitgetshome),excessivefees13,andtimeittakestoreceivethemoney(Comninos,etal,2009).ThepopularityofWesternUnion’sremittancedeliveryindicatesthatitaddressessaidconcerns,alongwiththeBOP’spreferenceofhavingremittancesdeliveredathometo
11multipleresponsequestion12where1means“Idistrustthismethodcompletely”and5means“Itrustthismethodcompletely”,respondentswereaskedtoratetheirdegreeoftrustintop‐upmethodsused:top‐upcards,electronicreloads,loadtransfersfromothers,andSMStop‐ups13feesaredependentonaccesstobankaccounts,thespeedoftransfer,thedestination,amount,exchangerates,etc.(Comninosetal,2009)
savetimeandtravelcosts(CKS,2009).Hence,tobeconsideredanalternativeremittancechannel,m‐moneyserviceshavetoasserttheiraddedvalueandservicequalitytotheBOP.
Forsubscribers,thebenefitsthatmobilecurrenciesprovideincludesavingsincost,time,andsecurity.OtherstudieshaveestimatedthattheadvantageofusingSMSpaymentsoverover‐the‐countertransactionswouldbearoundPhp216(roughly$4.25),whenoneconsidersthecostoftravel,andtheopportunitycostoftimespentforthetransaction(Owens,2006:6,ascitedinProenza,2007:52).Thisisasidefromthesafetyitprovidesgiventheriskofburglaryortheft.Theboxbelowillustratessuchsavings:
.
BOX1:TheCommonRemittanceprocess
Tounderstandthepotentialofm‐moneyforremittancepurposes,onemustfirstunderstandthenatureofdomesticremittancesamongthepoor.TakethecaseofMs.A,whoworksasadomestichelperinManila,andsendsmoneybacktoherparentsmonthly:
“ I send Php2000.00 per month to my mother through Cebuana Lhuillier (a pawnshop). The first time I sent money through them, I was asked for some identification. I provided my postal ID, after which they gave me a customer ID that I could use for future transactions. For every remittance I send, I provide the name of the person, and their address. For every transaction I do, they provide a control number. I pay a fee of Php70 per Php1000 I send. So every month I pay Php140. I call my mother to inform her of the control number. I also text her the control number to make sure she gets it correctly. She can then collect the money from her end by showing her ID (I think she will also get a customer ID once she’s been a client before), and the control number. Without the control number and ID, she will not be able to get the money. It costs Php 15 to travel to get the money, and another Php15 back.”
Inthecaseabove,onecanseethatforeveryPhp2000,theyspendaboutPhp195(P140fee;SMS/callP10;sendertransportP15;receivertravelP30).Thistranslatestoalmost10%ofthetransactionvalue.Onecanassumethatatravelcostvariesdependingonthedistancerelativesarefromthetowncenters.
Monetarysavingsareevidentwithm‐money,asthesenderandrecipientcollectivelysaveuptoPhp180.Assumingthatthesenderdidhercash‐inatGlobeWirelessCentersforfree,sheonlyneedstospendanadditionalSMSfeeofPhp2.50tosendtheremittancethroughmobile.Therecipient,however,onlyneedstopayaminimumofPhp20.00,assumingthatshewenttoapartnercentercharginga1%cash‐outfee.Onceinthecash‐outcenter,therecipienthastoreplywithherMPINtoasystem‐generatedSMSinitiatedbythecashierthatcostsPhp2.50worthofairtimeload.ThesaidSMSisanadditionalsecuritymeasuretoensurethatthepersondoingthecash‐outisthesameowneroftheGCashwallet/mobilenumber.
Evidenceoftrustinthetechnologyanditssecurity,isseenwithhowsomepeoplesendtheirtransactiondetailsandcontrolnumbersviaSMS(seeBox1Story).Thesepeoplearguethatsuchmethodmightbesaferthanhavingitwrittenonpaper,whichmaybemisread,miswrittenorlost.ThiswascapturedinthequalitativeinvestigationofLIRNEasiaonTeleuse@BOP3(CKS2009):
“…respondentsinallthesecountriesdidnothesitateinsendingtheirtransactionidentitynumbersforremittancesoveranSMS.In(the)Philippines,Thailand,SriLankaas
wellasBangladesh,migrantworkersdonothesitateinsharingtheimportantdetailsoftransactionsviatextmessagesorcallstotheirfamilymembersintheircountryoforigin.Theyinfact,preferit,sothatthewrittenrecordremainsconvenientlyathandanddoesnotfallinwronghands,whichcouldhappeniftheywerewritteninpaper(CKS2009:88).
Figure2:Sendinglocalremittancethroughtraditionalchannels(MTOs)
Sendingremittances,whetherlocallyorinternationally,wouldrequirethesendertoeventuallycommunicatewiththerecipientthatmoneywasbeingsent.Thiscouldeitherbethroughacall,anSMS,oranemailmessage.
Fromaninformationsystemsperspective,thisprocessissimplifiedwiththem‐moneyplatformsincetheresponsibilityofinformingtherecipientshiftsfromthesendertothem‐moneyserviceproviderandeliminatesthecostsofcallingandtextingrecipientsregardingtheirremittance(seeFigs.3&4).Itistheinformationsystemthatautomaticallysendsconfirmationtextstobothsenderandrecipientindicatingthesuccessofthetransactionatthesametimethem‐currencyistransferred.Moreover,itmakessendingmoneymoreflexible:senderscancash‐inmoneyinbulkthensendmoneyinincrements,anywhereatanytime,providedthatitiswithinthelimitsofmaximumnumberoftransactionsallowedperday.ThisreducesthetravelingexpensesandtimespentwhensendingmoneythroughMTOs.
Figure3:sendinglocalm‐remittancethroughcash‐in/outcenters
Figure4:sendinglocalm‐remittancethroughmobilephones
Table2showsthatthefeesforsendingmoneyaredependentontheavailablepartnercentersinthearea;forexample,asendermaycash‐inatacentercharginga1%transactionfeewhiletherecipientmaycash‐outatapartnercentercharging5%.Comparedtootherremittancechannels,feesform‐moneyservicesoccurbothatthefirstandlastmile14oftheprocess,afeaturewhichmaynotappealtomostrecipientsastheyareusedtothesendershoulderingallthetransactioncosts.Therefore,itisimportanttoexplaintocustomersthatinsummingallthefees,m‐moneyservicesarestillcomparativelycheaperthanotherexistingchannels.
Basedonpriceratesalone,theBOPmaystillusetheirexistingremittancechannelsintheeventthattheclosestm‐moneycentertothemwouldbetheonethatchargesa5%transactionfee.Otherwise,priceratesshouldserveasoneoftheincentivesforshiftingtom‐moneyforremittance.
14firstmile:sendingtheremittancelastmile:receivingtheremittance
Table2:FeesforsendingPhp1,000worthofdomesticremittance
Totalfeesarecomputedbasedonthepriceratesretrievedfromrespectivewebsitesande‐mailcorrespondences15;notethatLBC,WesternUnionandCebuanaLhuillierofferdifferentwaysofremittingmoney.Theyarenotlimitedtodeliveryorpick‐upremittance.Forpurposesofthispaper,onemethodandpricerateperMTOwaschosen.
15e‐mailcorrespondenceswith:DianaBonghanoy,QualityRelationsSpecialist,CebuanaLhuillier DonNinoSantos,GCashServicesTeam LeiMadridandYaniMallari,SMARTCustomerCareWesternUnion’sfeeisverifiedbytheirCustomerServiceRepresentative
Still,evenwiththerelativelylowtransactioncosts,theproportionofSMARTandGlobesubscribersutilizingSMARTPadalaorGCashremainssmall.Ofthe25millionSMARTsubscribers,only7millionhaveactivatedSMARTMoneySIMcards.Ofthese,only500,000areactiveusers.Globe,ontheotherhand,has1millionactivatedGCashSIMcardsfromits19millionsubscribers(CGAP2008).
MaterialAccess
TheperceivedubiquityofmobilephonesamongallsegmentsofsocietyincludingtheBOPhasbeentherationaleforconsideringthetechnologyfortheunbanked.
LIRNEasia’ssurveyconfirmedthattheBOPhaveeasieraccesstomobileservicesthanbankingandfinancialservices.Inthesurvey,only13%oftheBOP(n=800)reportedhavingabankaccountandonly1%hadaccesstocreditcard.Thisisincontrasttothe1.36mobilephoneperhouseholdforthesamesample.Hence,theavailabilityofmobilesinthehandsoftheBOPmakestheservicemorefeasible.
Still,reasonscitedintheLIRNEasiasurvey(referbacktoTable1)showthatissuesonphone/computerownership,andfees,stillhindersomeusersinaccessingtelephoneandcomputer‐basedpaymentservices(10%and9%respectively,n=294).Therearealsothosewiththeperceptionthattheirphoneisnotcapableofusingthatm‐moneyapplications(9%,n=294).Inreality,suchcapabilityhowever,isnotdependentonthemobilephoneitselfbutontheSIMcard.Whilem‐moneyforremittancesinthePhilippinesisanSMS‐basedserviceapplicabletoanymobilephonewithanSMSfeature,itishowever,limitedtothetwotelcoswhoareprovidingm‐moneyservices‐‐GlobeTelecom(GCash)andSMART(SMARTMoneyandSMARTPadala).M‐moneyservicesareexclusivetothesubscribersofthesaidtelcosandcross‐networkmoneytransferisnotpossible.Intheoryusingm‐moneymayalsobepossiblewithsharedhandsets;however,thiswouldalsohaveimplicationswithrespecttotheprivacyandsecurityoftransactions.
Tousem‐money,theBOPnon‐subscriberseitherhadtoswitchtoanothernetwork(purchaseanotherSIMcard)orusetwoSIMcards,whereinonewillbeusedform‐moneytransactions.ThisisevidentinthePhilippines,asamongthecountriessurveyed,ithadoneofthehigherreportedmultipleSIMuse(16%,n=506).Itwasnoted,thatoneBOPuserinterviewedsaidsheusuallyusesonenumber/networkforregularSMS‐communication;sheusestheotherwhenevershecallsonceamonthandcoordinatesherremittance(LIRNEasia2008).
Besidesaccesstoanybasicmobilephoneuseofm‐moneyforremittancewouldalsorequireaccesstosupportstructuressuchascash‐in/outcentersandfacilitiesforenrollingintheservice.Cash‐in/outcentersaresomewhatsimilartoMTOs.Theyarephysicaloutfitsthatconvertcashtom‐money(cash‐in)andviceversa(cash‐out);theymayalsofacilitatethemobilefundtransferfromthesendertotherecipient.Thisisbecausetherearetwowaystosendm‐moneyusingthemobileplatform‐‐throughthecash‐in/outcenter(seeFigure3)orthroughthemobilephone(Figure4);bothhoweverrequirecash‐intransactionspriortofundstransfer.TheGlobeGCashserviceconductsbothtransfermethodsunderthesamebrand.SMARThowever,marketseachprocessinadifferentbrand:SMARTMoneyallowsforphone‐to‐phonetransfers(Figure3)whileSMARTPadalausesthecash‐in/outsystem(Figure4).ASMARTMoneycardalsoallowsuserstowithdrawcreditortochargepurchasesthroughanyMasterCardterminal.Italsoallowsuserstosendcashcreditfromone’sSmartMoneyaccounttoanotherperson’sSmartMoneyaccountusingtheirmobilephone(Proenza,2007).Besidesthis,bothGlobeandSMARToperateinpartnershipwithotheragents(calledpartnercenters)suchasconveniencestoresandpawnshops.Thishelpsincreasetheirreachtoallgroups,particularlythoseinruralareaswhohaveproblemsinaccessingfinancialinstitutions.
Whileaccessibilitygenerallyoverridescostconcernswhensendingremittances,asexemplifiedbytheBOP’spreferencefortheWesternUnionDeliveryService,cash‐in/outfeesarestillaconcernsincethissectorheavilyreliesoncashfortheirexpenses.Hence,havinglimitednetwork/outletsacceptingm‐moneyfortransactionsposesproblems.Andwithlessthan1%ofthe1millionmerchantssellingairtimeregisteredtoperformthisfunction,themobiletransferprocessnowbecomessimilartothepick‐upremittanceprocess:recipientshavetogotophysicalinstitutionstoutilizethemoney(CGAP2008).Thesenewoptionsprovidecustomersnotonlywithconvenience,butalsochoice.Whatisimportant,however,isgreatertransparencywithrespecttorates,asfeesmayvarydependingonthe‘partner’used.Also,choicewouldstillbemorelimitedinruralareas.
Otherbarrierstousingthetechnologyinclude:(1)theBOP’saccesstoacceptableidentificationdocuments(suchasformalhomeaddressrequiredforidentityproof(CKS,2009))whichareneededtoactivateanaccountortochangem‐moneytocashand(2)themethodofconvertingcashintoelectronicvalueandtheotherwayaround,asrequiredbybankingregulations.
SkillsAccess
M‐moneyservicesrequireSMS‐relatedskillsaswellasinformalfinancialskillssimilartoreceivingorsendingremittancesthroughtheusualplatforms.
With99%oftheBOPrespondentsbeingknowledgeableinusingSMSand98%sayingtheywritetheirownSMS(LIRNEasia2008),coupledwiththeconsiderablenumberwhohavesentremittancesitissurprisingthat56%oftheBOPstillstatedthattheirprimaryreasonfornotusingsuchservicesisbecausetheydonotknowhowtousetheservice(referbacktoTable1).Thisistruewithrespecttobothinternalandexternalmigrants.
Partofthereasonstemsfromtheolderagegroups’perceptionthatusingm‐moneyrequiresothersetsof‘softskills’acquiredfromusingcomputers,bankATMsandotherautomatedsystems,noneofwhichareprominentlyavailabletothem(CKS2009).Althoughcash‐in/outcentersandcustomerservicehotlinestechnicallyserveasinformationhubsforpotentialusersofm‐money,theBOPstilldependontheirsocialnetworksforinformationinputs.However,theyalsoexerciseagreatdealofindividualdecision‐makingthroughtheirrelianceoninformationontheinternet.Respondentsrelyontheirfriendsandothercontactsintheirsocialnetworkfortheirinformationbuttheyhavealsobeguntousetheinterneteffectively(CKS2009:109).Thisimpliesthatthespeedofadoptioncouldbeexponentialonceapartofamemberofasocialnetworkbecomesconvincedandlearnstheprocess.
Credibilitycomesintoplaywhenrespondentsaredealingwithimportantbusinessrelatedissuesontheirmobilephones,whenfinancialtransactionsarebeingcarriedoutornewservicesareexperienced(CKS2009).Inmostcountriespeoplewouldstillpreferface‐to‐facetransactionstoensuretransactionsoccur‘effectively’(sic).Itisnotthattheydistrustmobilephones,butfinditisdifficulttoimaginehowtransactionscanbedoneoverthephone.Thisisthechallengethatmobilecurrencieshavetoovercome:demonstratingthatsuchaservicecanworkandperhaps,whendealingwith‘larger’amounts,theBOPhastoweightherisksabitdifferently.
Conclusions
Giventhedearthofstudiesthatanalyzehowmobilephonesareinter‐relatingwiththepre‐existinginformalpracticesthatthepoorfavor(Duncombe&Boateng,2009),thisstudylookedathowm‐moneyasanalternativeremittancechannelcansubstituteforlongestablishedwaysthatthepoorremitmoneytotheirfamilies.
ThefeasibilityoftappingFilipinosattheBOPtousem‐moneyforbankingandremittancesisgood.AlargepercentageofthemhaverelativesworkingabroadorinotherpartsofthecountryandbasedontheLIRNEasiasurvey,only13%oftheBOPhavebankaccounts.Personalphoneownershipamongthemishigh,andthereare1.36mobilesperfamily.TheyalsohavetheprerequisiteknowledgeinSMS,andhighknowledgeandtrustinelectronicreloading.TheyalsohavehighawarenessincomparisonwithcounterpartsinSouthAsiaandSouthEastAsiaregardingthecapabilitytosendmoney(41%)anddobanking(23%)usingthephone.
However,despitetheapplication’sobviousrelevancetomanyFilipinosattheBOP,andtheirknowledgeofthefinancialservicessuchasbankingandmoneytransfersofferedthroughmobilephones,only1%oftheBOPhasuseditforbankingservices,andonly5%17hasmadepaymentsorreceivedmoneythroughthismethod.Thechallengeishowtoincreasethesenumbers.
BusinessChallenges
Themainchallengeform‐moneyusageismorementalsinceavailabilityofmobilesandtheskillsnecessaryforusingthemaregenerallypresentevenamongtheBOP.Foracountrywithalonghistoryofmigrantlabour,ithasalreadyaningrainednetworkandsystemforsendingmoneyhome.
ThelimitedawarenessoftheBOPraiseschallengesonthebusinesses’wayofpositioningtheirm‐moneyproduct.Theyfacecompetitionfromotherfundtransferagents‐‐pawnshopsofferingremittancesandexistingMTOs.AspeopleattheBOPhavebeenusedtoandaremorecomfortablewithentrustingtheirmoneytoa(1)Pawnshop‐MTOora(2)friend/relativevisitingtheplaceoftheirrecipient(CKS,2009).Telco‐bankpartnershipshavetostresstheircomparativeadvantagebyraisingawarenessonthebenefitsofm‐moneyandthesecurityofitssystem.
Marketingm‐money,however,haslargelybeenfocusedoninternationalremittances.But,asthispaperhasshown,moresignificanttotheBOParedomesticremittances.Thisisbecauseflowofinternationalremittanceshastendedtogotomoreaffluentsegmentsofthepopulation,whereasdomesticremittancesflowfromurbanareastopoorerprovinces.Furthermore,thereisminimaltransactionalcostsavingswithinternationalremittances,sinceallofthemarealllinkedtoformalbankingchannels.Withdomesticremittances,however,moredirecttransfersarepossible,withoutnecessarilygoingthroughformalfinancialchannels,andtherearegreatercostsavingsfromfees(seeTable2).Infact,domesticm‐moneytransfershavehadlargervolumesintermsoftransactionsandamounts.
Developingtheneededskillsandconfidenceisalsoanimportantchallengetoovercome.Theexistingproceduresforusingm‐moneyshouldbereviewedwiththeBOPinmind.AnexamplewouldbethesystemgeneratedSMSform‐money;consideringtheliteracyleveloftheBOP,thestructuringofmessagesshouldbeeasyenoughtounderstandandthatoptionstohaveitwritteninthenative
172%regularlydothis,3%havedoneit,butdonotdosoregularly.
languageordialectoftheBOPmayfacilitateeaseinuse.Moreover,EncouraginguseofthissystemwouldneedtoconsiderhowpeopleattheBOPgainskillstousenewtechnologiesandprocesses.Inthis,socialnetworkshaveanimportantroletoplay.
Limitedcash‐outcentersandretailoutletsthatacceptm‐moneymayrestricttheattractivenessofusingm‐moneyasrecipientsstillhavetoconvertthemtocash.PawnshopsareheavilyfavoredbytheBOPforlocalremittancesduetotheirminimalrequirementsandcustomersfeeltheydonothavetodressnicelytovisitsuchvenues(Iglesias,2009).Toaddressthis,them‐moneycentersshouldnotbeintimidatingtoBOPcustomersandshouldprovidehelpfulinformationonm‐moneyuse.Inthis,villageconveniencestoreshaveproveninthepasttobevaluableallies,especiallywithrespecttoelectronicloading.
Policyissues
Thesuccessofm‐moneyinreachingtheBOPistiedtothetelecommunicationpoliciesthataddresstherequiredinfrastructure,availableservicesandapplications(Ahmad,2006).Important,aswell,arebankingpoliciesthatalsoaffecttheregulatoryenvironmentofm‐moneyuse.Withm‐moneyservicesofferedbyGlobeandSMART,thePhilippineCentralBank(BSP)istechnicallyregulatingBancodeOro(BDO)(abank),andG‐Exchange(amoneytransferagent),andnotthetelecommunicationcompanies(SMARTandGloberespectively).InthecaseofG‐Xchange,thecompanyhasbeenregulatedbytheBSPasaremittanceagentsinceitsestablishmentin200519.ItiscoveredbyBSPCircularsandhastocomplywithAnti‐MoneyLaunderinglaws.Amongtheregulatoryimplicationsoftheselawsaretheneedtoverifytheidentityoftheusers,andlimitationsontheamountsthatsubscriberstotheservicecantransact.
ThiswouldhaveimplicationsontheBOPifsuchpoliciesaffectstheamountsthepoorareabletoremitorrestrictaccesstotheservicealtogether.TheLIRNEasiasurveyhasrevealedthattheaveragemoneysentpermonthbyexternalmigrantsabroadtotheBOPrespondentsis$90,anamountthatdoesnotexceedtheAMLAmonthlyloadlimitofPhp100,000setbytheBSP.AMLArestrictionsthen,maynotbeanissuefortheBOPsincetheydonotmovelargevaluespermonth.Theymay,however,bemoreaffectedbytheknow‐your‐customer(KYC)regulationsforbanking,astheymayhavedifficultyinobtainingproperidentificationcards,documentsandotherrequirements,thatwerenotrequiredwhengettingaprepaidmobilephoneline.Thechallenge,forpolicy‐makersistoencourageaccesstothesaiddocuments,whichmayalsobebeneficialforotheractivities.
Finally,animportantpolicyconsiderationisalwaystheprotectionofthecustomer.Unlesscustomersareassuredthattheirtransactionscanbesecured,theywillnotbeconvincedtousingm‐moneyasanalternativetothepresentmodesthattheyuse.InthePhilippines,theBSPhasalreadyruledthatm‐moneyisnotconsideredadepositandhencedonotearninterest.Oneimplicationisthatitisnotinsured.Nonetheless,theCentralBankdoesrequirethattheamountofm‐moneyincirculationshouldalwaysbebackedupwithanequalamountbyitsissuer.Italsorequiresproperredressmechanismsbeputinplaceaswellassecureinformationsystemsandrecordsmanagement.
Withgoodpolicies,thecentralbankcanencouragetheuseofm‐moneyamongbusinessesandconsumers.Technically,theideaistoregulatetheplayingfieldofm‐moneyandnottheplayers,soastoextendreachtotargetcustomersevenattheBOP.
19GXIwasset‐upayearafterGlobedevelopedtheGCashservice.
ReferencesAlampay,E.(2008)‘FilipinoentrepreneursontheInternet:whensocialnetworkingwebsitesmeetmobile
commerce’inScience, Technology & Society13:2(2008211‐231,SAGE,NewDelhi.
Ang,A.(2007)Workers’RemittancesandEconomicGrowthinthePhilippines.DEGITConferencePapersc012_029,DEGIT,Dynamics,EconomicGrowth,andInternationalTrade.<http://www.degit.ifw‐kiel.de/papers/degit_12/C012_029.pdf>
AsianDevelopmentBank[ADB](2004)EnhancingtheEfficiencyofOverseasFilipinoWorkersRemittances<http://www.adb.org/Documents/TARs/PHI/tar‐phi‐4185.pdf>
___________(2005)Workers’RemittanceFlowsinSoutheastAsia<http://www.adb.org/Documents/Reports/workers‐remittance/workers‐remittance.pdf>
Bångens,Dr.L.andB.Söderberg(2008)“MobileBanking–FinancialServicesfortheUnbanked?”TheSwedishProgramforICTinDevelopingRegions,SPIDER
BangkoSentralngPilipinas[BSP](2009a)TheBSPInternationalResearchConferenceonRemittances:30‐31March2009<http://www.bsp.gov.ph/events/ircr/about.htm>
____________(2009b)CircularNo.649,seriesof2009.
BaselCommitteeonBankingSupervision[Basel](1998)RiskManagementforElectronicBankingandElectronicMoneyActivities,March1998.
Bird,K.(2009)Philippines:Poverty,EmploymentandRemittancesSomeStylizedFacts.ConferencePaperNo.11BSPInternationalResearchConferenceonRemittances“TheMacroeconomicConsequencesofRemittances:ImplicationsforMonetaryandFinancialPoliciesinAsia”30‐31March2009<http://www.bsp.gov.ph/events/ircr/downloads/papers/BSP_11_bird_paper.pdf>
CebuanaLhuillier(2009)Rates and Charges[Table]<http://www.perapadala.com/rates.asp>
CKSConsultingPvt.Ltd.[CKS](2009).Teleuse@BOP3:AQualitativeStudy.Colombo:LIRNEasia
Comninos,A.,S.Esselaar,A.Ndiwalana,andC.Stork(2009‐unpublished)AirtimetoCash:UnlockingthePotentialofAfrica'sMobilePhonestobanktheunbanked,ResearchICTafrica.net,EdgeInstitute
ConsultativeGrouptoAssistthePoor[CGAP](2008)NotesonRegulationofBranchlessBankinginthePhilippines<http://cgap.org/gm/document‐1.9.3143/Philippines%20Notes%20on%20Regulation%20of%20Branchless%20Banking.pdf>
Duncombe,R.andR.Boateng(2009)MobilePhonesandFinancialServicesinDevelopingCountries:Areviewofconcepts,methods,issues,evidenceandfutureresearchdirection.DevelopmentInformatics,WorkingPaperSeriesNo.36,InstituteforDevelopmentPolicyandManagement,SED,UniversityofManchester
FoundationforDevelopmentCooperation(FDC)(2007)Policy and Regulatory Framework for Remittance – Philippines <http://www.fdc.org.au/Publications/ARC/Policy/FDC%20‐%20Remittance%20Policy%20‐%20Philippines.pdf>
GlobeTelecomInc.(2008a)Globe Telecom 2008 Annual ReportAccessed26August2009<http://web.portal.globe.com.ph/globe/Globe_2008_Annual_Report.pdf>
____________(2008b)Information Statement of Globe Telecom Inc. Pursuant to Section 20 of the Securities Regulation CodeAccessed26August2009<http://www1.globe.com.ph/img/documents/GT_200820is_Def_full.pdf>
____________(n.d)GCash Outlets in the Philippines
<http://site.globe.com.ph/web/gcash/29?sid=b7k41t1qd6ap61248673730194>
Gonzales,I.(2009,April2)BangkoSentralseesriseinremittances.Philippine StarRetrieved10June2009<http://www.philstar.com/Article.aspx?articleId=454220&publicationSubCategoryId=205>
GSMAssociation[GSMA](2008)IntroductiontoMMT<http://www.gsmworld.com/documents/GSMA_Introduction_to_MMT_0908.pdf>
Iglesias,M.(2008,January19)FilipinosSendHomeMoney:From‘Bayong’toTexting.Malaya NewspaperRetrieved17June2009<http://www.malaya.com.ph/anniv/anniv3.htm>
LBC(n.d)Money Remittance[Tables]<http://www.lbcexpress.com/remittance_phirates.asp>
LIRNEasia(2008)Teleuse@BOP3surveyfindings
Maimbo,S.andD.Ratha(Eds.)(2005)Remittances: Development Impact and Future ProspectsWashingtonDC:TheWorldBank
Mendes,S;E.Alampay,E.SorianoandC.Soriano(2007)TheinnovativeuseofmobileapplicationsinthePhilippines‐lessonforAfrica.DepartmentforInfrastructureandEconomicDevelopment.SIDA.
Nakanishi,A.(2009) Commentson: “Philippines:Poverty,EmploymentandRemittances –SomeStylizedFacts” byDr.KellyBird,ADBBSPInternationalResearchConferenceonRemittances31March2009[PowerpointSlides]
NationalStatisticesOffice[NSO](2007)2007Survey on Overseas Filipinos<http://www.census.gov.ph/data/sectordata/sr08353tx.html>
Pangilinan,M.(2007,4November)ViewsonViewsonRPeconomyarea‐changingPhilippine Daily InquirerRetrieved18August2009<http://business.inquirer.net/money/features/view/20071104‐98809/Views_on_RP_economy_are_a‐changing>
PhilippineLongDistanceTelephoneCompany(PLDT)(2008a)PLDT 2008 Annual ReportRetrieved26August2009<http://www.pldt.com.ph/investor/Documents/PLDT2008ANNUALREPORT_MainSection.pdf>
___________________(2008b)Financial ReviewRetrieved26August2009<http://www.pldt.com.ph/investor/Documents/PLDT2008ANNUALREPORT_FinancialSection.pdf>
Proenza,F.(2007)Enhancingruraldevelopmentthroughimprovedinfrastructureandinnovativeinformationapplications.Philippinecountryreport:Applications,FAOInvestmentCentre3June2007
SMARTTelecom(n.d.a)Rates[Table]<http://smart.com.ph/money/consumers/Rates.htm>
_____________(n.d.b)Remittance thru SMART Money (English version)<http://smart.com.ph/money/consumers/RemittanceENG.htm>
______________(n.d.c)SMART Padala Domestic<http://smart.com.ph/corporate/services/SmartPadala/PadalaDomestic.htm>
Soriano,E.andE.Barbin.(2007)M‐CommerceforMicrofinance:TheCARD‐NGOandRBAP‐MABSPilotStudyExperience,presentedintheInternationalConferenceonLivingtheInformationSocietyheldinMakatiCity,April23‐24,2007
VanDijk,J.(2006)The network society: social aspects of new media.Thousandoaks,CA:Sage
Wishart,N.(2006)Micro‐Payment Systems and Their Application to Mobile Networks.Washington,DC:infoDev/WorldBank.<http://www.infodev.org/en/Publication.43.html>
Zainudeen,A.(2008)WhatdousersattheBottomofthePyramidWant?InSamarajiva,R.&A.Zainudeen(Eds),ICT Infrastructure in Emerging Asia: Policy and Regulatory Roadblocks (pp39‐59).IDRC&Sage