World Bank G2P X ASPIRE Report by brendaryan

Digitalization of Social Assistance Payments: A Stocktaking

© 2026 International Bank for Reconstruction and Development / The World Bank 1818 H Street NW Washington DC 20433 Telephone: 202-473-1000 Internet: www.worldbank.org This work is a product of the staff of The World Bank with external contributions. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this work do not necessarily reflect the views of The World Bank, its Board of Executive Directors, or the governments they represent. The World Bank does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this work. The boundaries, colors, denominations, and other information shown on any map in this work do not imply any judgment on the part of The World Bank concerning the legal status of any territory or the endorsement or acceptance of such boundaries.

Rights and Permissions The material in this work is subject to copyright. Because the World Bank encourages dissemination of its knowledge, this work may be reproduced, in whole or in part, for noncommercial purposes as long as full attribution to this work is given. Any queries on rights and licenses, including subsidiary rights, should be addressed to World Bank Publications, The World Bank Group, 1818 H Street NW, Washington, DC 20433, USA; fax: 202-522-2625; e-mail: pubrights@worldbank.org

Contents Acknowledgments

About

ASPIRE

G2Px

Abbreviations

Executive Summary

vii

Introduction

2. Current State of Payment Methods Used by Social Assistance Programs 2.1.

1 5

Payment Mechanisms and the Role of Digitalization in Delivering Social Assistance Benefits

Adoption of Digital and Manual Payment Methods

Adoption of Different Types of Digital Payment Methods

Account versus Non-Account Digital Payment Methods

Type of Account Payments

Limited versus fully functional accounts

Payment instruments

2.2. Payment Service Providers: Types, Selection Process, and Recipient Choice

Type of Payment Service Providers

Selection of Payment Service Providers and Recipient Choice

3. Enablers of Digital Payment Delivery

Account Ownership

ID Ownership

Connectivity and Mobile Phone Ownership

Financial Inclusion Policy

4. Digital Payments in Adaptive Social Protection and Financial Resilience

5. Conclusion

References

Annex: Additional Data and Figures

Annex A. Sample Characteristics

Annex B. Definitions

Annex C. Statistics by Number of Programs

Annex D. Additional Figures

Contents

| i

List of Figures Figure B1.1.1:

Social Protection Delivery Chain

Figure B1.2.1: Next-generation G2P payment - 16 building blocks

Figure 2.1:

Different payment methods for social assistance programs

Figure 2.2:

Payment methods by programs and countries

Figure 2.3:

Number of social assistance recipients by payment method

Figure 2.4:

Type of digital payments by programs and countries

Figure 2.5:

Type of account-based payment by programs and countries

Figure 2.6:

Type of digital payment methods by region (percentage of countries)

Figure 2.7:

Type of account functionality observed in the sample of countries

Figure 2.8:

Share of countries by account functionality in account-based payments (percentage of countries)

Figure B2.2.1: Distribution of social assistance programs by payment methods and frequency of benefits

Figure 2.9:

Distribution of payment service providers (PSP) in countries implementing account-based payments

Figure 2.10:

Percentage of countries by type of procurement of PSPs

Figure 2.11:

Choice of PSPs offered by social assistance programs

Figure 2.12:

Choice of PSP by account ownership and usage of digital payments

Figure B2.3.1: Number of countries by type of payment point, among those using digital payments

Figure 3.1:

Percentage of countries by level of account ownership and type of payment mechanism

Figure 3.2:

Percentage of countries by level of account ownership and type of digital payment mechanism

Figure 3.3:

Percentage of countries by level of account ownership and account functionality

Figure 3.4:

Percentage of adults in the poorest 40 percent with ID, by payment mechanisms

Figure 3.5:

Percentage of adults in the poorest 40 percent with ID, by type of digital payment mechanism

Figure 3.6:

Percentage of adults in the poorest 40 percent with identification, by type of account functionality

Figure 3.7:

Percentage of population within 2G mobile network, by payment mechanism

Figure 3.8:

Percentage of population owning mobile phones, by digital payment methods

Figure 3.9:

Percentage of countries with and without financial inclusion policies via G2P digitalization, by type of payment mechanism

Figure B3.1.1: Percentage of countries by rurality level and type of payment mechanism

Figure B3.1.2: Percentage of countries by rurality level and type of digital payments

Figure B3.2.1: Evolution of Ecuador’s cash transfer programs’ digitalization - 2019–2024

Figure 4.1:

Countries’ payment modalities versus climate-hazard exposure (percentage of countries)

ii | Digitalization of Social Assistance Payments: A Stocktaking

Figure A.1:

Sample of programs and countries used in the report

Figure C.2:

Digital methods observed in the flagship program of each country in the sample

Figure C.3:

Type of account-based payment by programs

Figure C.4:

Percentage of female recipients for the largest programs (34 programs/ countries)

Figure D.1:

Percentage of countries by type of PSPs

Figure D.2:

Percentage of countries with and without simplified CDD policy requirements, by account functionality

Figure D.3:

Percentage of countries with and without regulatory frameworks in place for NBEI, by account functionality

List of Tables Table A.1: List of countries included in the report

Table B.1: Definitions of payment variables collected by ASPIRE

Table B.2: G2P terminology

Table C.1: Summary tables on payment methods, account types, and payment service providers (number of programs)

List of Boxes Box 1.1:

The Social Protection Delivery Chain

Box 1.2:

The building blocks of a modern G2P architecture

Box 2.1:

Empowering women through digital social assistance payments: A gender lens

Box 2.2:

Payment methods and frequency of benefits

Box 2.3:

Access points

Box 3.1:

Delivering payments to the last mile

Box 3.2:

Toward the digitalization of cash transfer payments in Ecuador

Box 3.3:

Challenges and risks of digitalizing G2P payments

Contents

| iii

Acknowledgments This report was authored by Ola Hesham Moustafa Hossni (G2Px - ASPIRE consultant), Georgina Marin (Senior Digital Development Specialist), Fiorella Risso Brandon (G2Px consultant), and Claudia P Rodriguez Alas (Senior Social Protection Specialist). The report was prepared under the guidance of Iffath Sharif (WBG Director, Social Policy, WKHSD), Christian Bodewig (WBG Director, Education and Skills, WKHED), Loli Arribas-Baños (Practice Manager, HAES1), Josefina Posadas (Manager, Social Policy, Policy & Regulations, WKHS1), Penny Williams (Manager, Development Effectiveness, WKHDS), Stela Mocan (Acting Director, Digital Public Infrastructure & Services, WKDPI), Julia Michal Clark (Lead Digital Specialist, WKDPR), Jamele Rigolini (Senior Advisor, WKHSD), and Victor Sulla (ASPIRE Program Manager). This report is the result of the collaboration between the Atlas of Social Protection: Indicators of Resilience and Equity (ASPIRE) and the Digitalizing Government-to-Person Payments (G2Px) initiative. The team is also deeply grateful for the guidance provided by the peer reviewers: Robert J. Palacios (Social Protection Lead Economist), Douglas Randall (Senior Financial Sector Specialist), and Minita Mary Varghese (Digital Specialist). Special thanks are due to Melis U. Guven (Lead Economist), Mohamed Bubaker Alsafi Almenfi (Social Protection Specialist), and Rebecca Jane Rouse (G2Px Consultant) for their valuable contributions and guidance. The authors recognize the ASPIRE Team for their work collecting, reviewing, processing, curating, and safeguarding the ASPIRE data as well as their excellent support and research assistance: Johanna Estefania Andrango Brito, Maria Belen Fonteñez, Wiem Jinzri, Veronica Lopez, Ana Sofia Martinez Cordova, Ingrid Mujica, Omar Arturo Nieto Martinez, and Lidiia Tkachenko. Finally, the remarkable task of collecting, sharing, and validating detailed social assistance data would not have been possible without the support of country teams. Their dedication and hard work have been invaluable, and we sincerely appreciate their contributions. Country team members include Julia Rachel Ravelosoa, Zo Andrianjaka Tahiana Randrianatoandro, John Van Dyck, Malin Linnea Sofia Ed, Julieta M. Trias, Luz Stella Rodriguez-Novoa, Melissa Zumaeta Aurazo, Rada Nawwaf Nafe Naji, Soukaina Tazi, Douglas Randall, Pascale Schnitzer, Sarah Coll-Black, Mrike Aliu, Samik Adhikari, Snjezana Plevko, Samantha Zaldivar Chimal, Edmundo Murrugarra, Chipo Msowoya, Ahmet Fatih Ortakaya, Nadine Chehade, Mohamad Hussein Mansour, Fahmina Rahman Dutta, Ruth Rodriguez, Ning Fu, Jyoti Maya Pandey, Anupama Shakya, Juul Pinxten, Ahmed Faragallah, Athanase Danhossou, Ioana Alexandra Botea, Emma Mercedes Monsalve Montiel, I Gede Putra Arsana, Ekki Syamsulhakim, Eflina Pehulita Sinulingga, Binyam Mesfin Shiferaw, Indira Bongisa Lekezwa, Mohamed El Aziz Ben Ghachem, Mahdi Barouni, Olfa Hamza Ep Hila, Cornelia M. Tesliuc, Ailo Klara Manigat, Silima Keopaseuth, Yasuhiro Kawasoe, Kenichi Nishikawa Chavez, Mohamed Bubaker Alsafi Almenfi, Federica Ricaldi, Thomas Vaughan Bowen, Claudia Carlisle Meek, Victoria Monchuk, Yoonyoung Cho, Marco Nicoli, Abla Safir, Silas Udahemuka, Sifa Uwera, Steisianasari Mileiva, Mack Capehart Mulbah, Mitja Del Bono, Joachim Boko, Ashiq Aziz, Syud Amer Ahmed, Md Shawkat Ali, Kevin Sanya Heraniah, Mia Monique Blakstad, Gibson Mudiriza, Jumana Jamal Subhi Alaref, Sonam Lhamo, Sumita Chopra, Ambrish Shahi, Shrayana Bhattacharya, Jacqueline Manisabwe, Aissata Coulibaly, Amjad Zafar Khan, Zaineb Majoka, Michele Davide Zini, Ubah Thomas Ubah, Muderis Abdulahi Mohammed, Maria Virginia Ceretti, Clemente Avila Parra, Ursula Milagros Martinez Angulo, Elisa Beatriz Seguin, Santiago De la Cadena Becerra, Johannes Koettl, Sarang Chaudhary, Iftikhar Malik, Vanessa Moreira da Silva, Samer Said, Samira Ahmed Hillis, Vincenzo Vinci, Margaux Vinez, Antoine Navarro, and Ramya Sundaram. The team also thanks Brenda Ryan for her diligent work in typesetting the report.

iv | Digitalization of Social Assistance Payments: A Stocktaking

About ASPIRE ASPIRE (the Atlas of Social Protection: Indicators of Resilience and Equity) is the World Bank’s premier compilation of social protection indicators from administrative program-level data and nationally representative household surveys to analyze the scope and performance of social protection programs. ASPIRE includes harmonized performance indicators from 592 household surveys across 132 countries, along with social protection expenditure for 88 countries, based on administrative records from over 1,200 social assistance and social insurance programs. ASPIRE contributes to monitoring country progress on social protection and labor outcomes, allows benchmarking of social protection program performance across countries and time, and contributes to the global improvement of quality and availability of household surveys and administrative social protection data. To find out more, visit ASPIRE external portal.

G2Px The World Bank Group’s G2Px (Digitalizing Government-to-Person Payments) Initiative focuses on transforming government-to-person (G2P) payments to accelerate development outcomes, including financial inclusion, women’s economic empowerment, resilience, and government-wide efficiency gains. G2Px supports countries in modernizing their G2P payment ecosystems with recipient-centric frameworks and evidence-based guidance on sustainable and inclusive models. G2Px works through three reinforcing pillars of work: (1) thought leadership and analytics to build evidence and develop guidance, (2) country action to support countries in their modernization of G2P architectures, and (3) global convening and networks to share good practices. G2Px operates across the World Bank Group with units working on digital transformation, social protection, agriculture, health, financial inclusion, payment systems, social inclusion, governance, research, gender, and data protection, among others. The work of G2Px is made possible with the support from the World Bank Group, Gates Foundation, Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation, and the French Government. To find out more, visit www.worldbank.org/g2px.

About

| v

Abbreviations AML/CFT Anti-money Laundering and Countering the Financing of Terrorism ASP Adaptive Social Protection ATM Automated Teller Machine ASPIRE Atlas of Social Protection Indicators of Resilience and Equity CDD Customer Due Diligence EAP East Asia and Pacific ECA Europe and Central Asia FATF Financial Action Task Force FICP Financial Inclusion and Consumer Protection G2P Government-to-Person G2Px Digitalizing Government-to-Person Payments IBAN International Bank Account Number ID Identification ID4D Identification for Development IMAS Instituto Mixto de Ayuda Social (Social Welfare Institute) ITU International Telecommunication Union KYC Know Your Customer LAC Latin America and the Caribbean MENAAP

Middle East, North Africa, Afghanistan, and Pakistan (MENAAP)

MFI Microfinance Institution MGNREGA Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme MIES Ministry of Economic and Social Inclusion MNO Mobile Network Operator MTO Money Transfer Operator NBEI Non-Bank E-Money Issuers OTC Over-the-Counter OTP One-Time Password POS Point of Sale PSP Payment Service Provider SACCO Savings and Credit Cooperative Organization SAR South Asia Region SINPE Sistema Nacional de Pagos Electrónicos (National Electronic Payment System) SSA Sub-Saharan Africa TSA Treasury Single Account USSD Unstructured Supplementary Service Data

vi | Digitalization of Social Assistance Payments: A Stocktaking

Executive Summary The rapid digitalization of government-to-person (G2P) payments is reshaping how social assistance is delivered across the globe. Nearly 94 percent of the countries analyzed use digital payments in at least one social assistance program. However, full digitalization remains limited. Only 27 percent of countries use exclusively digital payment methods across all their programs. This indicates a widespread reliance on a mix of digital and manual payments. This report provides a comprehensive analysis of how countries are adopting and implementing digital payment mechanisms for social assistance. Drawing from data on 383 programs in 123 countries, it explores the payment methods used, the role of payment service providers (PSPs), and the enabling conditions that shape a country’s digital readiness. Based on the data, approximately 306 million recipients (65 percent of the sample) receive benefits exclusively through digital payments, with another 150 million in programs using a mix of digital and manual methods. However, 17 million recipients still rely solely on manual payments, especially in flagship programs, highlighting ongoing challenges in scaling digital solutions. Digital G2P payments can significantly advance women’s economic empowerment by providing private, functional accounts that serve as gateways to broader financial services. Despite progress, women—especially those who are poor, rural, or marginalized—face barriers such as lack of access to financial services, mobile phones, and identification (ID) as well as restrictive social norms and costs. Programs that direct payments into women’s accounts and offer choice of provider have shown positive impacts on women’s financial inclusion, labor force participation, and household decision-making. Tailored design features (for example, biometric verification, female agents) and inclusive program design are critical to maximizing benefits for women. Account-based digital payments are the most common modality in the sample: 96 percent of digitalized programs use them, but many combine them with manual or non-account digital methods. Account-based payments offer advantages such as reduced fraud, lower administrative costs, and greater flexibility for recipients, but they can introduce new costs (for example, account fees) and barriers (for example, lack of ID). On the other hand, non-account digital payments (for example, e-vouchers, one-time codes) are less common and do not foster financial inclusion but can serve as a transitional step from manual to account-based payments. Among countries and programs leveraging account-based payments, traditional accounts remain the most used method, surpassing mobile money. About 73 percent of countries in the sample use traditional accounts in their digital payment system to some extent, but very few rely on them alone. Mobile money accounts are predominant in Sub-Saharan Africa, where they may offer a more scalable solution for reaching rural and underserved populations. Mobile money can sometimes bypass strict ID requirements, making it a viable digital option in low-ID environments, especially when regulations are relaxed for low-value accounts. Social assistance benefits made into fully functional accounts can contribute to advancing financial inclusion. However, analysis of digital account functionality shows that only 17 percent of countries in the sample use fully functional accounts exclusively (which allow saving, transfers, and broader financial activity), while 54 percent use them in combination with limited-purpose accounts or manual methods. Limited-purpose accounts, which restrict usage and access, are common, especially in low-income countries and certain regions. Diversity and regulation of PSPs are key to effective social assistance delivery. State-owned and private commercial banks are the most common PSPs, with 60 percent of countries in the sample relying exclusively on them. Non-bank e-money providers are increasingly important, especially in SubSaharan Africa, where they help extend coverage to remote and underserved areas through agent-

Executive Summary

| vii

based models. Allowing recipients to choose their PSP can improve convenience, reduce costs, and enhance service quality; however, only 21 percent of countries in the sample offer open choice in all their programs. Countries with open choice tend to have higher account ownership and digital payment usage, supported by strong digital infrastructure and ID systems. The digitalization of social assistance payments is shaped by a country’s financial and digital ecosystem, legal and regulatory environment, and policy choices. Key enablers include account and ID ownership, mobile phone and network coverage, and supportive financial inclusion policies. Countries with higher levels of account ownership tend to use digital payment methods for social assistance. In these countries, established financial infrastructure and widespread access points facilitate digital rollout, while those with low account ownership or lower ID coverage tend to rely more on manual payments or limited-purpose accounts, missing opportunities for broader financial inclusion. Digital payments are essential to adaptive social protection (ASP), improving access to formal financial services and enabling recipients to better manage money and cope with shocks. The COVID-19 pandemic accelerated digital financial inclusion, but many countries have since reverted to manual or mixed methods, underscoring the need for continued investment and structural reforms. As climate-related shocks become more frequent, digital payments offer speed, flexibility, and traceability, making social protection systems more adaptive and resilient. To fully realize these benefits and ensure no one is left behind, sustained investment in foundational systems and inclusive design is critical. In conclusion, the digitalization of G2P payments, including social assistance, holds immense potential to enhance the efficiency, inclusivity, and resilience of social assistance systems. To fully realize these benefits, countries must address persistent barriers, invest in digital infrastructure, and prioritize inclusive design. By fostering strong regulatory frameworks, expanding access to digital financial services, and ensuring that vulnerable groups are not left behind, governments can build more adaptive and equitable social protection systems for the future.

viii | Digitalization of Social Assistance Payments: A Stocktaking

1. Introduction Social assistance programs are a key pillar of social protection systems, playing a critical role in helping individuals and households manage poverty and vulnerability. These non-contributory programs are specifically designed to support those facing chronic poverty and to help them navigate various risks, crises, and shocks. Over the past decade, the reach of social assistance has grown significantly, covering an average of 42 percent of the global population and 58 percent of individuals in the poorest income quintile (Okamura et al. 2025; World Bank 2025a). Social assistance1 is a form of government-to-person (G2P) payment, together with pensions, public sector wages, and tax refunds (World Bank 2022c). Approximately 23 percent of adults in the low- and middle-income economies receive some form of government payments, highlighting the broad reach and significance of G2P systems (Global Findex Database 2025b). Governments increasingly recognize the importance of digitalizing G2P payments, including social assistance, as a means to enhance program delivery (Palaon and Roest 2024; World Bank 2022c). Digitalization enables governments to transfer funds electronically, reducing reliance on physical cash transactions and offering faster, more efficient, and cost-effective payment options. (World Bank 2022b). The COVID-19 pandemic accelerated the digitalization of social assistance payments, as governments urgently sought fast, safe, and scalable mechanisms to deliver emergency cash transfers (World Bank 2022a). Countries with strong digital public infrastructure—such as digital identification (ID) systems, payment platforms, and data-sharing capabilities—were more successful in rapidly expanding assistance (Marin and Palacios 2022). However, adoption varied widely, highlighting country-specific gaps in infrastructure, coordination, and delivery systems. These experiences highlighted the need for robust, flexible, and scalable systems to deliver G2P payments. Digitalizing G2P payments in social assistance programs offers a powerful opportunity to improve service delivery and advance financial inclusion.2 For many poor and rural beneficiaries, digital payments represent their first interaction with formal financial systems, promoting financial literacy and empowerment, especially for women, when transfers are made to accounts in their names. However, these benefits depend on thoughtful, inclusive design that addresses barriers like limited digital access, low literacy, and gender-specific constraints. When well-designed, digital payments can further improve recipients’ satisfaction by reducing the time, cost, and uncertainty involved in accessing funds, while also encouraging savings and the use of additional financial services (Bachas et al. 2017; Muralidharan et al. 2014). Digitalizing G2P payments promotes transparency, enables government-wide fiscal savings, and spur financial market development (Singer and Klapper 2017; World Bank 2022c). By integrating digital ID systems and centralizing payment platforms, digital payments enhance transparency in how benefits are distributed. This traceability helps streamline operations and reduce corruption, fraud, and leakage (Muralidharan et al. 2014). Moreover, digital G2P payments can catalyze financial market development by encouraging payment service providers (PSPs) to expand and develop new products and engage with new client segments. These shifts can foster innovation, strengthen infrastructure, and drive greater competition, especially when programs give recipients the freedom to choose their provider (Singer and Klapper 2017).

Social assistance, also known as social safety nets, includes noncontributory (that is, tax- or donor-financed) programs, encompassing a broad range of programs such as unconditional and conditional cash transfers, social pensions, food and in-kind transfers, school feeding, public works, fee waivers and targeted subsidies, non-contributory health services, social care services, and other social assistance. For the purposes of this report, the analysis focuses on cash-based social assistance programs.

The expansion of digital payments has been a key driver of financial inclusion, integrating users into the formal financial system through multiple use cases—such as Government-to-People (G2P) transfers, wage payments, remittances, Peer-to-Peer (P2P) transfers, and merchant payments—and not solely through social assistance programs.

Introduction

Conceptual Frameworks The analysis in this report is guided by two conceptual frameworks: the Social Protection Delivery Chain and the Modern G2P Architecture (see boxes 1.1 and 1.2). These frameworks provide the basis for understanding how digital payments function within broader social protection systems and the G2P building blocks required for effective, inclusive, and sustainable delivery.

Box 1.1: The Social Protection Delivery Chain a The Social Protection Delivery Chain serves as a useful framework to understand the key stages involved in implementing social protection programs (Lindert et al. 2020). These stages typically include identifying and reaching potential beneficiaries, assessing needs and eligibility, enrolling participants, delivering benefits, and managing ongoing program operations such as compliance and exit procedures (see figure B1.1.1). The provision (payments) of cash benefits corresponds to the “Provide stage” and cannot be delinked from the stages that precede them in the delivery chain (Lindert et al. 2020). While this report acknowledges the full delivery chain, it focuses specifically on the provision phase—where benefits are transferred to recipients. The digitalization of social protection payments also contributes to strengthening the enabling environment for the delivery of social protection programs. Each function in the chain, from outreach and intake to registration, eligibility determination, and enrolment, must be carefully designed and executed to ensure that the correct individuals are identified and prepared for payment. The development of an accurate payment list— containing only eligible and enrolled beneficiaries—relies heavily on the integrity of earlier functions, particularly the quality of the social registry and program-specific management information systems. The management of recipients’ data can be used to improve the targeting of social protection programs, ensuring that funds are reaching the right people and optimizing program delivery. Over time, these data can help refine policies, identify gaps, and predict future needs. Countries that have invested in digital systems across the delivery chain often extend that investment to include digital payment infrastructure. These countries not only improve the efficiency and transparency of social protection delivery but also enable integration with financial service providers. As a result, digital social assistance payments are more likely to reach the intended recipients in a timely and accountable manner, completing a well-functioning end-to-end delivery system across the social protection delivery chain. FIGURE B1.1.1: Social Protection Delivery Chain ASSESS

ENROLL

Outreach

Intake and registration

Assessment of needs and conditions

MANAGE

PROVIDE

Eligibility and enrollment decisions

Determination of benefits and service package

Notification and onboarding

Provision of benefits and/or services

Beneficiaries compliance, updating, and grievances

RECURRING CYCLE

Exit decisions, notifications, and case outcomes

PERIODIC REASSESSMENT Source: Lindert et al. 2020. Note: a. The Social Protection Delivery Chain constitutes an operational guideline for the implementation of the delivery of social protection programs that coherently maps every operational process along the way.

2 | Digitalization of Social Assistance Payments: A Stocktaking

Box 1.2: The building blocks of a modern G2P architecture A modern G2P architecture is a comprehensive framework that supports the end-to-end digital delivery of social assistance benefits with recipients at the center (World Bank 2022c). It encompasses all systems, infrastructure, regulations, policies, and design choices that enable and characterize the end-to-end delivery of G2P payments (World Bank 2022c). This modern G2P architecture can enable the digitalization of social assistance payments (and other types of G2P payments) in a way that not only improves program-level efficiency but also supports broader, long-term development outcomes. The architecture consists of 16 essential building blocks that are needed to deliver digital G2P payments in a way that can lead to long-term development outcomes (see figure B1.2.1). These building blocks are structured around three main pillars: (a) Infrastructure such as ID and social registries, program and payroll systems, public financial management platforms, and the broader national payments infrastructure; (b) Product and market design that allows for participation from both bank and non-bank providers, supported by agent networks and appropriate payment instruments; and (c) Inclusion and empowerment: at its core, the system must be inclusive—ensuring users understand, access, and benefit from payments in a secure and dignified manner. This includes access to clear information, grievance redress mechanisms, consumer protection, and data privacy safeguards—key to building trust and enabling safe, confident use. This is especially critical for women and other marginalized groups, who often face additional barriers in accessing and using digital payments.

FIGURE B1.2.1: Next-generation G2P payment - 16 building blocks

Infrastructure

Central Treasury System

Sectoral Databases & Systems

ID System

National Payments System

Product and Market Design

Account Directory

Bank & Non-Bank PSPs

Trusted Data Sharing

PSP Participation Model

Accounts & Payment Instruments

Distribution Networks & Access Points

Payment Acceptance Networks

Inclusion and Empowerment

Communication & Literacy

Recipient Protection & Grievance Redressal

Data Protection & Cybersecurity

Gender Lens

CROSS-CUTTING BUILDING BLOCKS

DIGITAL STACK

Connectivity

Source: World Bank 2022c.

Journey to Digitalization The path to digitalizing social assistance payments is a gradual journey that varies widely across countries and depends on factors such as local context, institutional capacity, and existing infrastructure. There is no one-size-fits-all approach; each country’s journey is influenced by its starting point—whether in digital ID systems, social registries, or payment infrastructure—and requires phased, coordinated improvements aligned with national capacities and recipient needs. Digitalization is typically a gradual and phased process, beginning with basic steps like digitizing manual processes and expanding payment systems, with more advanced features such as provider choice or direct payments

Introduction

| 3

introduced gradually once foundational systems are established. Some countries may start with pilot programs or digitize specific interventions before scaling up to broader social assistance systems. Several key enablers can help countries use digital payments to deliver social assistance programs. For example, onboarding recipients into accounts—whether traditional or mobile accounts—requires reliable identity verification. Countries with widespread digital ID coverage, simplified or remote know your customer (KYC) and customer due diligence (CDD) regulations3 and existing levels of account ownership are better positioned to expand digital payments quickly (Marin and Palacios 2022). Also, recipients must be able to access and use their benefits easily. This depends on the availability of financial access points—such as automated teller machines (ATMs), agent networks, and financial institution branches—and the extent of digital payment acceptance among merchants in their communities. Furthermore, an effective digital payment system relies on a functioning financial ecosystem and regulatory framework. This includes interoperable payment infrastructure, partnerships with PSPs, and policies that enable participation by non-bank actors, such as e-money issuers. The ability to support remote onboarding, ensure system connectivity, and promote mobile phone access are also important foundations for scaling digital delivery. Equally important are the underlying social protection delivery systems. Effective digital payments depend on the ability to accurately identify and enroll beneficiaries, manage delivery systems, and make informed targeting decisions. This is especially crucial in resource-constrained environments, where weak delivery systems can undermine the potential benefits of digitalization. Strengthening these systems is therefore essential for realizing the full value of digital social assistance payments.

About the Report This report aims to analyze the current global and regional state of digitalization of payment methods in social assistance programs. It identifies existing payment mechanisms, outlines key enablers of digitalization and explores insights into outcomes of interest such as financial inclusion. The analysis highlights the role of various G2P payment building blocks and design principles, including account design and payment instruments, types of PSPs, access point networks, and recipient choice. It draws on good international practices. Through country examples, the report provides insights into the conditions that enable or hinder the adoption of digital payments in social assistance. This report is intended for policy makers, social protection specialists, international development agencies, and technical experts involved in the design and implementation of cash transfer programs and digital payment systems. It may also be of interest to financial service providers and stakeholders working on financial inclusion and digital government. The analysis leverages novel data from the Atlas of Social Protection: Indicators of Resilience and Equity (ASPIRE) encompassing 383 cash-based social assistance programs across 123 countries.4 The analysis is complemented with additional global data sources as well as qualitative and anecdotical information from country reports. ASPIRE data harmonization allows data comparability of payment methods used across programs and countries. The dataset includes a key set of variables that enables the study of payments ecosystems (see Annex A for further details on sample characteristics). The report is structured as follows: After the introduction, Section 2 develops the analysis of the state of payment methods used in social assistance programs, including procurement, type and choice of PSPs, and access points. Section 3 explores some of the enabling factors for digital payment delivery, including account ownership, ID ownership, connectivity, mobile phone ownership, and financial inclusion policy. Section 4 explores the role of digitalization as a key element to facilitate adaptative social protection and financial resilience. Finally, Section 5 (Conclusion) provides lessons learned and policy implications. 3

CDD requirements are set by financial institutions to comply with national regulations for identifying and verifying customer details in advance of open a financial account. National regulations are heavily informed by guidelines provided by the Financial Action Task Force (FATF), the global standard-setting body charged with anti-money laundering and countering the financing of terrorism (AML/CFT). CDD requirements include, but are not limited to, details collected at the time of new account onboarding, commonly referred to as KYC requirements.

Indicators on payments were incorporated into ASPIRE in 2020 through a collaboration with the World Bank’s Digitalizing Government-to-Person Payments (G2Px) Initiative. Collection of the ASPIRE-G2Px set of indicators is ongoing.

4 | Digitalization of Social Assistance Payments: A Stocktaking

2. Current State of Payment Methods Used by Social Assistance Programs Social assistance payments are delivered through different methods across countries. These methods ranged from physical cash distribution to various digital options, including account-based transfers, e-wallets, and non-account-based methods such as one-time passwords (OTPs) and QR codes (see figure 2.1). The choice of methods responds to a multitude of variables, including the country’s infrastructure, digital financial ecosystem, legal and regulatory framework, and prevailing policies. Programs can use a single payment method or a mix of methods to ensure all beneficiaries receive their benefits. This section takes stock of the payment methods adopted by countries to deliver cash-based social assistance benefits and their level of digitalization.

FIGURE 2.1: Different payment methods for social assistance programs

Digital payments

Manual payments

Digital accountbased

Digital non-accountbased

Manual

Payments made into a recipient account

Payments accessed with digital channels but not linked to a recipient account

Payments made with paperbased methods

Traditional accounts

Mobile money accounts

One-time-passwords e-vouchers

Sub-categorized based on how recipient can use the account

Fully-functional account Recipients can make:

Electronic payments (receive and make)

Cash-in-hand Paper vouchers Checks

Limited-purpose account Recipients can NOT make:

Remittances & transfers

Savings

Ability to use account beyond cash out

Source: Original figure for this report.

2.1. Payment Mechanisms and the Role of Digitalization in Delivering Social Assistance Benefits The analysis throughout the report is based on categorizing countries into three groups. The first group includes countries that have fully digitalized the payments of their largest social assistance programs. The second group consists of countries that still use a mix of digital and manual payment methods. The third group comprises countries that rely solely on manual payments. This section analyzes countries that have implemented digital methods exclusively or in combination with manual payments to better understand how the incidence and characteristics of digital payment methods vary across these two distinct groups.

Current State of Payment Methods Used by Social Assistance Programs

| 5

Adoption of Digital and Manual Payment Methods Social assistance payment methods can be categorized into two main types: digital payments and manual payments. Digital payments refer to account- or non-account-based payments that use a digital device or channel, and include methods such as bank transfers, mobile money, QR codes, or payment cards.5 Manual payments, on the other hand, encompass all payments made using paper-based methods like paper vouchers, checks, or direct cash-in-hand distributions (see figure 2.2). This section examines the use of digital and manual payments—whether exclusively or in combination—across a sample of 123 countries and 383 programs. About 94 percent of the countries in the sample use digital payment methods in at least one of their programs, highlighting the significant progress made in digitizing social assistance payments in recent years. Yet most countries (67 percent) still use digital payment alongside manual methods within individual programs or across their programs (see figure 2.2).6 Only 27 percent of these countries use exclusively digital payment methods in all their programs with available data. Program-level analysis indicates that nearly half of the 383 programs in the sample deliver benefits exclusively through digital methods, while 39 percent (149 programs) use a combination of manual and digital approaches, and 12 percent (48 programs) rely solely on manual payments (see figure 2.2). However, when focusing on countries’ flagship social assistance programs, the proportion using digital methods exclusively drops to 40 percent (see figure 6.2 in the annex). This reflects that while digitalization efforts are increasing, a significant number of countries still rely on manual payments, indicating that digital payment systems have not yet been fully scaled across programs within countries.

FIGURE 2.2: Payment methods by programs and countries

Percentage of programs and countries 100

7% (8)

13% (48) 80 60

39% (149)

67% (82)

40 20

49% (186)

27% (33)

0 Programs (n=383) Digital only

Countries (n=123) Mix of digital and manual methods

Manual only

Source: World Bank, ASPIRE - https://www.worldbank.org/aspire. Note: Analysis based on payment data from 383 programs across 123 countries, covering 2020 to 2025. The average number of programs per country is three. “Mix of digital and manual methods” in the country-level analysis refers to countries where both manual and digital payments are used, either within individual programs or across multiple programs.

When referring to digital or non-digital payment methods, the report specifically focuses on the customers’ experience and how they interact with the payment system.

For the country-level analysis, all program data within a country are aggregated to reflect the mix of payment methods used across all its programs with available data. The “mix of digital and manual methods” in country-level analysis includes countries where both manual and digital payments are used, either within individual programs or across multiple programs. For instance, a country is classified as having a mix of payment methods if Program A uses digital payments and Program B uses manual payments exclusively and/or if either program uses a mix of manual and digital methods.

6 | Digitalization of Social Assistance Payments: A Stocktaking

The analysis of flagship programs in 101 countries7 shows that 47 percent of programs deliver social assistance payments using a combination of digital and manual methods (see figure C.2 in the annex). Of the remaining programs, 40 percent use solely digital methods, while 13 percent use only manual methods. Twenty-one countries in the sample continue to use manual or a combination of digital and manual methods in their flagship programs, even when they have fully digitalized payments in other programs. For instance, in Bolivia, the largest program, Bono Juancito Pinto, provides cash payments, while smaller programs, like the Juana Azurduy Grant, have started using digital payments through transactional accounts. In Mozambique, the main program, the Basic Social Subsidy Programme, relied on manual payments, but the country used a combination of digital and manual methods for a smaller program, the Direct Social Support Program, which introduced mobile money accounts. Flagship or large programs in some countries may not be fully digitalized because digital payments are being piloted in smaller programs or those targeting specific population groups. This was especially true for COVID-response programs, which were digitalized due to the need to reach targeted populations quickly and without physical interaction. However, after the pandemic, governments struggled to scale up digitalization to larger and more wide-reaching programs. This indicates significant room for improvement in transitioning toward fully digital solutions, demonstrating the ongoing gap between partial implementation and full-scale digital approaches. Approximately 306 million program recipients (65 percent, across the 383 programs analyzed in the sample) receive their benefit exclusively through digital payments.8 An additional 150 million recipients are in programs that provide a mix of digital and manual payment methods, highlighting the potential of these programs to expand digital payments to a total of 456 million recipients. In contrast, 17 million recipients continue to receive benefits exclusively through manual methods (see figure 2.3). Except for India9 and China, where the sample did not include all main programs, the figure includes at least one of the three largest programs in all other countries in the sample. Box 2.1 sheds light on the number of female recipients. FIGURE 2.3: Number of social assistance recipients by payment method

Number of recipients in millions 350 300

306

250 200 150

150 100 50

Digital payment

Mix of digital and manual payments

Manual payment

Source: World Bank, ASPIRE - https://www.worldbank.org/aspire. Note: Analysis is based on data available for the number of recipients for 382 programs across 123 countries. “Recipients” refer to individuals who directly the cash transfer payment. For programs targeted at households or families, only one recipient is counted per household or family unit. Recipient numbers are added across programs by region using only programs with data within the period 2015–2023. This approach may lead to an overestimation of total recipients if individuals receive benefits from multiple programs.

Data to identify the flagship or largest program per country were available for only 101 of the 123 countries in the sample.

The number of recipients may include duplicates, as individuals can be part of multiple programs within the sample. Therefore, the total recipient count should be interpreted as an upper bound. Analysis is based on data for 382 programs in 123 countries; 1 program was excluded due to missing recipient data.

For additional information on India’s Direct Benefit Transfer (DBT) schemes, see the Government of India’s DBT Bharat portal: https://dbtbharat.gov.in/.

Current State of Payment Methods Used by Social Assistance Programs

| 7

Box 2.1: Empowering women through digital social assistance payments: A gender lens Digitalizing G2P social assistance payments offers significant opportunities to advance women’s economic empowerment. When payments are directed into fully functional private accounts in a woman’s name, these accounts can serve as a gateway to broader financial services and greater financial autonomy (World Bank 2025c). This access enables women to generate, accumulate, and control income and assets, strengthening their decision-making power and participation in the labor force (Singer and Klapper 2017; World Bank 2022c). Notably, in developing countries, 423 million women opened their first account to receive government transfers, highlighting the transformative potential of digital payments to increase women’s financial inclusion (Global Findex 2021). Despite these benefits, several barriers limit women’s ability to fully participate in and benefit from digital payments. Many women—especially those who are poor, rural, or marginalized—lack access to formal financial services, mobile phones, or official ID documents, all of which are prerequisites for receiving digital payments (Klapper et al. 2022; World Bank; Innovations for Poverty Action 2024). In West and East Africa, for example, women are 5 percentage points more likely than men to lack ID (Global Findex 2025). Restrictive gender norms, lack of trust in financial institutions, and discriminatory practices further hinder women’s access and use of digital financial services (World Bank 2022c). Additionally, the absence of sex-disaggregated data and gender analysis can result in programs that overlook women’s specific needs, leading to unintended exclusion. Costs associated with account opening, maintenance, and mobile phone ownership, as well as limited digital and financial literacy, also remain significant obstacles. Women’s exclusion from formal financial systems remains a critical challenge. Globally, 55 percent of adults without accounts are women, who are more likely than men to lack access to formal financial services (Global Findex 2025). The gender gap in poverty is also notable: in 2024, 24.3 million more women than men lived in extreme poverty, with a higher poverty rate among females (9.8 percent) than males (9.1 percent) (UN Women 2024). Digitalizing social assistance payments can help address these disparities by expanding the reach and efficiency of social protection programs. Digital payments reduce administrative costs, minimize leakages, and enable rapid scaling—capabilities that proved especially critical during crises such as the COVID-19 pandemic (Marin and Palacios 2022; Zimmerman et al. 2020). For women, digital payments offer easier, safer, and more private access to funds, often closer to where they live and work. Directing payments into women’s accounts is a critical step for empowerment. Evidence shows that when women are the default recipients of cash transfers, they gain greater control over resources, increased safety, and enhanced decision-making power within households (Bull et al. 2021; World Bank 2025c). In a sample of 370 social assistance programs, at least 26 percent explicitly target women, though targeting does not always guarantee that women are the actual recipients. Data from 34 countries (ASPIRE) show a growing trend of programs prioritizing women as recipients. Some programs, such as Peru’s Juntos, Niger’s Wadata Talaka, Girls’ Education South Sudan (GESS), and Somalia’s BAXNAANO Program (“Baxnaano” meaning “uplifting” in Somali), are exclusively or largely targeted to women, while several others have a majority of female recipients (see figure C.4 in the annex). When women have the choice of provider, they are more likely to use their accounts actively and access additional financial services, such as savings and credit, further enhancing their economic agency (Botea et al. 2021). In India, evidence from the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (MGNREGA) highlights that directing payments into women’s own accounts not only expanded financial inclusion but also boosted labor force participation—especially among women facing social resistance (Bull et al. 2021). In South Africa, the rollout of bank cards for child support grant recipients—primarily mothers— significantly enhanced women’s financial inclusion and internal household bargaining power, leading to a 92-percentage point increase in their likelihood of labor market participation by granting them greater control over their income and decision-making (Van Biljon et al. 2018). (Continued)

8 | Digitalization of Social Assistance Payments: A Stocktaking

(Continued) To fully realize the benefits of digital social assistance for women, payment systems should be designed with inclusion in mind. Features like biometric verification, as in Pakistan’s Benazir Income Support Programme (BISP) program, can ensure transfers reach women directly (Cheema et al. 2016; Clark et al. 2022). Recruiting and training female agents builds trust and improves outcomes, as seen in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, India, and Bangladesh (Aadil et al. 2019; Barooah et al. 2018; Chamboko et al. 2020). Simplified onboarding and confidential grievance mechanisms, involving women in program design and providing financial and digital literacy training, further empower women to use their accounts and expand their financial capabilities (Botea et al. 2021; World Bank 2025c). Inclusive digital payment systems should ultimately empower women and create more equitable access to financial services.

Adoption of Different Types of Digital Payment Methods Account versus Non-Account Digital Payment Methods Digital payments methods encompass both account-based payments and non-account digital methods. Account-based payments encompass payments made into all types of accounts, including mobile money or e-wallet accounts and traditional accounts, including savings, checking, or basic accounts at commercial banks, microfinance institutions (MFIs), or cooperatives.10 Account-based payments also include fully functional (transactional) and limited-purpose accounts. On the other hand, non-account digital payments encompass electronic transfers that do not require a personal account but instead use single use prepaid cards, e-vouchers, codes or OTPs for fund access at ATMs or point of sale (POS) terminals. This section examines the prevalence of account-based versus non-account digital payment methods in 335 programs and 115 countries leveraging digital methods. For countries and programs that use account-based payments, it also explores the distribution of different account types. In countries and programs that have adopted digital payment methods, account-based options remain the dominant ones, though many programs still combine them with other payment types. Figure 2.4 shows that of the 335 programs that rely on digital payments in at least one of their programs, 96 percent (322 programs) have adopted account-based payments to some extent. However, nearly half (44 percent) of these programs combine account-based payments with other modalities—39 percent with manual payments, 2 percent with non-account digital payments, and 3.3 percent with both. At the country-level analysis, nearly all 115 countries leveraging digital methods (98 percent) incorporate account-based payments, either exclusively or in combination. Yet, 74 percent of these countries combine account-based payments with other methods—56 percent with manual payments, 4 percent with non-account digital methods, and 14 percent with both. This indicates that while digitalization is advancing, full reliance on account-based payments remains limited. Account-based payments can offer several advantages. These include reduced workload for implementing agencies, lower risks of fraud when control systems are strong, and enhanced flexibility for recipients who can choose when and where to withdraw funds. These payments also facilitate access to the formal financial system, which can be transformative for populations previously excluded from it. However, setting up such systems can require complex negotiations, lengthy onboarding processes, and coordination with financial institutions. Banks may hesitate to open accounts for low-value transfers, and fees may be passed on to recipients. In addition, some recipients—especially those lacking ID or familiarity with financial institutions—may face exclusion. These barriers highlight the importance of considering broader country-level enablers such as infrastructure, regulatory frameworks, and ID/ account ownership (explored further in Section 3).

10 These include Savings and Credit Cooperative Organization (SACCO).

Current State of Payment Methods Used by Social Assistance Programs

| 9

Account-based payments can reduce delivery costs for social assistance programs, but they may also introduce new costs that need to be carefully managed. One of the main arguments for digitalizing payments is the potential for cost savings compared to manual payments, which often involve high expenses related to transportation, security, staffing, and logistics. For instance, South Africa achieved a 62 percent cost reduction by shifting to traditional account transfers (Lindert et al. 2007). On the other hand, account-based payments can entail additional costs for the user, such as account-opening fees or charges for cashing out. These costs need to be carefully managed, so they do not affect program beneficiaries. For instance, Ecuador adapted its digital payment rollout to allow recipients to use their existing savings accounts, avoiding related costs. Similarly, Zambia’s Supporting Women’s Livelihoods program11 introduced a recipient-centered payment model where recipients receive a top-up to cover withdrawal fees. This top-up is set at the highest withdrawal fee in the market, so if a recipient chooses a provider with lower fees, he/she keeps the difference (Baur-Yazbeck et al. 2019). Additionally, they provided a flat additional amount to all recipients to help cover transportation costs to financial access points. FIGURE 2.4: Type of digital payments by programs and countries

Percentage of programs and countries 100 2%

2% 2%

2% 14% 4%

80 39% 60

56% 40 51% 20 24% 0

Programs (n=335) Account only Mix of account and manual methods Mix of account, digital non-account and manual methods Mix of digital non-account and manual methods

Countries (n=115) Mix of account and digital non-account Digital non-account only

Source: World Bank, ASPIRE - https://www.worldbank.org/aspire.

Note: Analysis is based on 335 programs across 115 countries. The “mix of account and digital non-account methods” category in country-level analysis includes countries where both account-based and non-account digital payments are used, either within individual programs or across multiple programs. For instance, if Program A uses accountbased payments and Program B uses non-account digital payments, the country is classified as having a mix of payment methods.

Conversely, non-account digital payments are not widely used among programs and countries in the sample. Only 31 programs in the sample (9 percent) use non-account digital method, either solely or in combination with account-based methods, manual methods, or both. For example, Lebanon’s AMAN program provides unconditional cash transfers to extremely poor households and covers schooling costs for children ages 12–18; these payments are delivered in US dollars leveraging money transfer operators (MTOs). Recipients receive a text message with a unique number with which they can cash out from MTO agents. The back-end process is digitalized, creating efficiency gains, and the model gives recipients a choice among several agents to cash out, thus creating more convenience.

This is part of the Girls’ Education and Women’s Empowerment and Livelihoods (GEWEL) project.

10 | Digitalization of Social Assistance Payments: A Stocktaking

Country-level analysis shows that only 23 countries (20 percent) used non-account digital methods, most often in combination with account-based and/or manual payments. No country in the sample exclusively uses non-account digital payments (see figure 2.4). Even though non-account digital methods are convenient and a step forward from manual methods, they are not conducive to financial inclusion. Recipients have no access to an account nor any of the benefits that could represent opportunities to save, transact, and build financial resilience. However non-account digital payment methods still represent a step in the right direction compared to manual payments. These payments offer social protection authorities a more operationally straightforward approach than manual payments and can serve as an essential interim stage on the path to account-based payments. These methods can be particularly useful in contexts where remote account onboarding is not possible, offering a digital alternative to manual payments without requiring account creation. Non-account digital payments can still create a pathway toward financial inclusion, particularly when programs offer features that facilitate account linkages, allowing recipients to transfer their digital, code-based payments into a wallet or bank account. Strengthening efforts to transition to digital account-based methods, in particular, toward fully functional accounts, will be critical in maximizing the impact of social assistance payments and fostering long-term financial inclusion and women’s empowerment.

Type of Account Payments Among countries and programs leveraging account-based payments, traditional accounts remain the most used method, surpassing mobile money.12 At least 75 percent (240) of the 322 programs deliver payments through traditional accounts to some extent, and nearly one-third use them exclusively (99 programs) (see figure 2.5a). In contrast, only 10 percent (33) of programs rely on mobile money accounts, either on their own or combined with manual payments. More than one-quarter (88) of programs use a mix of traditional accounts and mobile money or manual methods (see figure 2.5a). At the country level, the pattern is similar: about 73 percent (82) of countries use traditional accounts in their digital payment system to some extent, but very few rely on them alone. Most combine them with mobile money and/ or manual payments (see figure 2.5b). The type of account used often reflects a country’s financial landscape, including the reach of banking infrastructure, mobile money penetration, and the availability of access points (explored further in Section 3). While traditional accounts remain dominant, mobile money accounts may offer a more scalable solution for reaching rural and underserved populations. Mobile money can be particularly effective in areas where low population density and limited infrastructure make it difficult to establish and maintain physical bank branches, ATMs, or POS devices. For instance, Kenya’s government transitioned Inua Jamii payments from traditional bank disbursements to mobile-based transfers in January 2025. This change reduced travel burdens for recipients in remote areas by enabling withdrawals at any M‑Pesa agents using a simple unstructured supplementary service data (USSD) code. Also, Brazil’s Bolsa Família benefits can be received directly into digital accounts provided by Caixa Econômica Federal, such as the Poupança Social Digital, which are automatically opened for recipients and accessed via the Caixa Tem app. In environments with limited banking infrastructure, mobile money has emerged as a powerful tool to expand women’s access. In Niger, delivering transfers via mobile money increased women’s control over household resources and improved diet diversity (Aker et al. 2016). In Bangladesh, digitizing the Primary Education Stipend Program led nearly 70 percent of participating mothers to open mobile accounts for the first time, improving their financial autonomy and satisfaction (Gelb 2019). Similarly, non-accountbased digital payments, such as e-vouchers or OTPs, can be more feasible in lower-capacity settings, offering a valuable stepping-stone to full financial inclusion by connecting women to formal providers for the first time.

There are two types of accounts: mobile money and traditional accounts. A “mobile money account” is a financial service that allows users to store, send, and receive money using a mobile phone. Users can access these services via mobile apps or USSD codes. A “traditional account” refers to a standard account, such as checking or savings, offered by a regulated financial institution, including banks or credit unions/cooperatives. These accounts can be accessed through branches, ATMs, debit cards, checks, or online banking platforms.

Current State of Payment Methods Used by Social Assistance Programs

| 11

FIGURE 2.5: Type of account-based payment by programs and countries a. Number of programs (322)

b. Number of countries (113)

200

100

180 160

179

140

120

143 24 14

100

60 50

60 40

40 30

20 0

31 33 6 3 12

Digital only

Mix of digital and manual methods

Digital only

Mix of digital and manual methods

Unspecified

Mobile money account

Traditional and mobile money accounts

Traditional account

Source: World Bank, ASPIRE - https://www.worldbank.org/aspire. Note: Analysis is based on 322 programs across 113 countries using account-based payments. Given that not all programs in the sample had available data on the type of accounts, the categories presented in the country-level analysis may be underestimated. In instances where data was not available for all programs in a given country, the country was classified as “unspecified.” “Mix of digital and manual methods” in the country-level analysis refers to multiple payment methods used within the same program or across different programs in the country.

There are regional differences in social assistance payment methods, influenced in part by the varying levels of financial infrastructure development across countries. While digital payment methods are leveraged across all regions, manual payments are still used exclusively by some programs and countries in almost all regions13 (see figure 2.6a). This is particularly true in the Middle East, North Africa, Afghanistan, and Pakistan and Sub-Saharan Africa where 14 and 10 percent of countries in the sample, respectively, use solely manual methods. A mix of digital and manual payment methods is the most common approach across regions, pointing to a transition period that may lead to more digital payment methods in the future. Latin America and the Caribbean and Europe and Central Asia report a higher incidence of countries combining manual and digital payment methods (76 and 70 percent of countries, respectively). While all regions also leverage account-based digital payments, differences in their prevalence are observed. Most countries leveraging digital payments do so by using traditional accounts exclusively or in combination with other payment methods. About 96 and 90 percent of Europe and Central Asia and East Asia and Pacific countries, respectively, in the sample use account payments solely or alongside manual methods (see figure 2.6b). A lower proportion of countries in all regions use a combination of account and non-account-based approaches to deliver social assistance benefits. For example, a higher proportion of countries in the Sub-Saharan Africa and Latin America and the Caribbean use a mix of account and non-account digital methods (29 and 21 percent, respectively) while in Europe and Central Asia this is only 4 percent. Sub-Saharan Africa is also the only region reporting two countries in the sample that use non-account digital payments exclusively (see figure 2.6b). 13

No EAP country in the sample relies solely on manual methods to deliver social assistance payments.

12 | Digitalization of Social Assistance Payments: A Stocktaking

FIGURE 2.6: Type of digital payment methods by region (percentage of countries) a. Digital versus manual (Number of countries - 123) EAP

40%

ECA

60%

26%

LAC

70%

20%

MENAAP

76% 29%

SAR

14% 60%

26% 0

57% 40%

SSA

64%

10%

100

Percentage of countries Digital

Mixed digital and manual

Manual

b. Account versus digital non-account (Number of countries - 115) EAP

90%

ECA

10% 4%

96%

LAC

79%

21%

MENAAP

83%

17%

SAR

80%

20%

SSA

66% 0

29% 40

Percentage of countries Mixed account and digital non-account

Account

100

Digital non-account

c. Type of digital account (Number of countries - 113) EAP

60%

ECA 4%

20%

73%

LAC

23%

54%

MENAAP

29%

75%

SAR

20%

SSA

40%

25% 0

Traditional account

17%

40%

33% 20

33% 50

Percentage of countries Mixed traditional and mobile money accounts

8% 80

Mobile money account

100 Unspecified

Source: World Bank, ASPIRE - https://www.worldbank.org/aspire. Note: Analysis is based on 383 programs in 123 countries. World Bank abbreviations for the regions are as follows: EAP = East Asia and Pacific; ECA = Europe and Central Asia; LAC = Latin America and the Caribbean; MENAAP= Middle East, North Africa, Afghanistan, and Pakistan; SAR = South Asia; SSA = Sub-Saharan Africa. “Digital only” includes traditional or mobile money accounts and digital non-account-based payments. Given that not all programs in the sample had available data on the type of accounts, the categories presented in the country-level analysis may be underestimated. In instances where data were not available for all programs in a given country, the country was classified as “unspecified.” “Mix of digital and manual methods” in the country-level analysis refers to multiple payment methods used within the same program or across different programs in the country.

Current State of Payment Methods Used by Social Assistance Programs

| 13

When analyzing the type of digital accounts, Sub-Saharan Africa also stands out as a region that heavily leverages mobile money to deliver social assistance. About 33 percent of sample countries in Sub-Saharan Africa use only mobile money accounts (see figure 2.6c). This highlights the potential of mobile-based solutions in a context where traditional banking had limited penetration. In this region, mobile money represented an alternative to traditional banking that was more effective at reaching the vastly underserved population. Countries like Burundi, Eswatini, and Tanzania have successfully leveraged mobile money to deliver social assistance programs. For instance, Eswatini’s Old Age Grant program, which serves more than 86,000 beneficiaries, uses a mixed approach to account-based payments: over 84 percent of beneficiaries receive their benefits through mobile money accounts, while only 16 percent use traditional accounts.14 By 2024, two in five adults in Sub-Saharan Africa (40 percent) had a mobile money account—making it the region with the highest share of mobile money users. Of these users, 20 percent relied exclusively on this type of account (Global Findex Database 2025). However, Sub-Saharan Africa is no longer the only region with high adoption: in Latin America and the Caribbean, 37 percent of adults now have a mobile money account (Global Findex Database 2025). Middle East, North Africa, Afghanistan, and Pakistan delivers most of its social assistance benefits using traditional accounts while Europe and Central Asia uses mostly a combination of traditional and mobile money accounts. About 75 percent of sample countries in Middle East, North Africa, Afghanistan, and Pakistan use traditional accounts to deliver social assistance benefits, followed by East Asia and Pacific (60 percent). On the other hand, about 73 percent of sample countries in Europe and Central Asia include programs that use a mix of traditional and mobile money accounts to deliver payments. For example, in Romania, the three main cash-based programs—Child State Allowance, Monthly Complementary Personal Budget for Persons with Disabilities, and Child Rearing Benefit— leverage both account-based and manual distribution methods. Benefits are either deposited directly into recipients’ bank accounts through commercial state-owned or private banks or disbursed via postal orders for manual collection. However, reliance on manual processes, such as postal orders, can lead to inefficiencies and delays. In Georgia, benefits from the Targeted Social Assistance program are disbursed electronically via bank accounts, e-cards, and mobile wallet options (see figure 2.6c).

Limited versus fully functional accounts Social assistance benefits made into fully functional accounts can contribute to advancing financial inclusion. They enable recipients to engage in a range of financial services beyond basic withdrawals— including savings, transfers, deposits, and credit.15 In contrast, limited-purpose accounts, despite being a digital method, are not conducive to financial inclusion because they limit how recipient can use the account or access their funds (either by design of the account or by the existence of policies such as clawback clauses16) or accounts are not in the recipient’s name.17 Realizing the full potential of fully functional accounts requires overcoming several barriers. High fees, limited infrastructure (for example, ATMs, POS terminals), low financial and digital literacy, and a lack of trust in service providers often lead recipients to immediately cash out their transfers. Addressing gender gaps in account ownership and promoting regular usage call for bundled interventions—including user/recipient education, tailored product design, and strong rollout strategies—alongside foundational enablers such as digital ID systems. Without a comprehensive and context-sensitive approach, fully functional accounts risk falling short of their potential to foster sustained financial inclusion.

Data provided by the World Bank Social Protection and Jobs country team for Eswatini, March 2025.

These accounts can be savings, checking, or basic accounts at a commercial bank, cooperative, or MFI. Mobile money accounts or e-money wallets can also provide full functionality.

Clawback clause: In the context of G2P payments, these are clauses or policies in social assistance programs whereby payments already paid into an account are reverted or “clawed back” by the program under certain conditions, such as if the recipient does not withdraw the funds within a certain time frame. (World Bank 2022c)

These accounts still include bank, postal bank, cooperatives, MFI accounts, or mobile money accounts, but with restrictions.

14 | Digitalization of Social Assistance Payments: A Stocktaking

Despite the high prevalence of fully functional (transactional) accounts in the sample, only a few countries rely on them exclusively—highlighting a missed opportunity to deepen financial inclusion and improve recipients’ welfare. About 19 countries (17 percent) use it exclusively in their programs, and 61 (54 percent) use it in combination with manual methods. Another 17 countries (15 percent) use fully functional accounts in combination with limited purpose accounts (see figure 2.7). Examples of countries using fully functional accounts include Colombia, India, Indonesia, Mexico, and Peru, where programs disburse transfers through such accounts, offering an entry point to formal financial systems. For program-level analysis, see figure C.3 in the annex.

FIGURE 2.7: Type of account functionality observed in the sample of countries

Percentage of countries 2% (2)

Manual only, 7% (8) 7% (9)

7% (8)

8% (10)

5% (6) Digital account only, 27% (33)

50% (61)

Mix of digital non-account and manual methods

15% (19)

Mix of digital and manual methods, 67% (82)

Mix of fully functional and limited-purpose accounts

Limited-purpose account

Fully functional account

Source: World Bank, ASPIRE - https://www.worldbank.org/aspire. Note: The analysis is based on 383 programs across 123 countries. “Mix of digital and manual methods” in the countrylevel analysis refers to multiple payment methods used within the same program or across different programs in the country. The figure corresponds to data on account functionality only, regardless of the program or country utilizing them alongside non-account methods.

Limited-purpose accounts impose various restrictions that limit beneficiaries’ ability to fully participate in the financial system. These accounts often only accept government transfers, require full withdrawal within a set time frame (for example, within three months) and do not allow saving transactions or developing financial habits that could lead to greater financial economic security. They also pose challenges for recipients in remote areas who might prefer to accumulate payments to save on travel costs. Some accounts only allow disbursement at specific locations or lack payment instruments like prepaid cards, reducing flexibility and access. Others use prepaid cards that are singleuse or reloadable, but funds may be held in sub-accounts controlled by the program. These accounts often operate outside the broader financial ecosystem, with limited user control and privacy. Issuers may monitor spending and share data without robust protection, raising transparency and privacy concerns. Together, these limitations hinder financial inclusion and highlight the need for more inclusive, user-friendly digital payment solutions.

Current State of Payment Methods Used by Social Assistance Programs

| 15

Yet, nearly 14 percent of the countries in the sample use limited-purpose accounts—either exclusively or alongside manual methods. The prevalence of such accounts is particularly high in Middle East, North Africa, Afghanistan, and Pakistan (33 percent) and Latin America and the Caribbean (17 percent). Lowincome countries have a higher incidence (27 percent) compared to high-income countries (5 percent) (see figure 2.8). Examples of social assistance programs relying on limited-purpose accounts includes Panama’s 120 at 65 program, which uses Tarjeta Clave Social cards and cash distribution in remote areas; in 2023, it served over 122,000 recipients (60 percent of whom were female), with 93 percent receiving transfers through limited-purpose accounts. Guatemala’s main cash transfer programs also use such accounts and OTPs for payments. Cambodia’s Cash Transfer Program for Pregnant Women and Children (CTP-PWC) has been incorporated into the broader National Social Assistance Program in the Family Package (NSAP-FP) which officially launched in April 2024. Beneficiary households are onboarded to a designated Payment Service Provider. The government facilitates the opening of an account for the head of household using KYC details such as National ID, Equity Card18/IDPoor reference, and a registered mobile number. Beneficiaries withdraw funds through PSP agent outlets; however, the accounts provided for G2P disbursement are limited in functionality and are not designed for deposits, savings, or broader digital transactions. FIGURE 2.8: Share of countries by account functionality in account-based payments Percentage of countries 100 90 80

10%

17%

10%

8% 8%

27%

33%

11%

21%

10%

15%

17%

21%

10%

18%

14% 60%

18%

60 50 40

80%

72%

85%

85% 63%

71%

73%

Total (n=113)

LIC (n=15)

61%

58%

73%

40%

10 0 SSA (n=36)

EAP (n=10)

ECA (n=26)

LAC MENAAP (n=24) (n=12)

Fully functional account

SAR (n=5)

Mix of fully functional and limited-purpose accounts

LMIC (n=38)

UMIC (n=40)

HIC (n=20)

Limited-purpose account

Source: World Bank, ASPIRE - https://www.worldbank.org/aspire. Note: This analysis is based on 113 out of 123 countries in the sample that use account-based payments in at least one program. The figure corresponds to data on account functionality only, regardless of the program or country utilizing them alongside non-account methods. LIC = Low-income country; LMIC = Lower-middle-income country; UMIC = Upper middle-income country; and HIC = High-income country.

Payment instruments The extent to which digital payments promote financial inclusion also depends on the availability and accessibility of payment instruments such as debit cards, e-wallets, and mobile banking services. Among 115 countries leveraging digital payments, 65 (57 percent) give their beneficiaries the option to use debit cards or e-wallets/mobile banking. Without these tools, beneficiaries may face barriers to using their accounts beyond simple withdrawals, limiting the benefits of digital financial services. Not all social assistance programs provide beneficiaries with free and accessible payment instruments. Some programs subsidize debit cards for fully functional (transaction) accounts, while others rely on regulations requiring PSPs to offer them at no cost. However, when beneficiaries must pay for debit cards and their use is not mandatory, uptake is low. For instance, in Ecuador, where beneficiaries cover the cost of debit cards, only 27 percent uptake was recorded (World Bank 2021a). 18

The Equity Card under Cambodia’s IDPoor program is an official ID that allows poor households to access social assistance and health services.

16 | Digitalization of Social Assistance Payments: A Stocktaking

For limited-purpose accounts, the availability of payment instruments varies widely. Some programs issue prepaid cards, as seen in Angola, enabling beneficiaries to access their funds with some level of flexibility. However, in other cases, such as Guatemala, program design explicitly prohibits the use of such instruments, restricting beneficiaries to over-the-counter (OTC) cash withdrawals. To maximize the benefits of digital payment systems, social assistance programs can prioritize free or subsidized access to payment instruments. Ensuring that all beneficiaries, particularly those in remote or underserved areas, have access to debit cards, mobile wallets, or other financial tools is crucial for driving financial inclusion. Without this, digital payment systems risk reinforcing financial exclusion rather than bridging the gap. Beyond determining how beneficiaries access their funds through payment instruments, the timing and frequency of benefit disbursements also matter significantly. Box 2.2 explores payment frequency and methods.

Box 2.2: Payment methods and frequency of benefits Findings from the report indicate that programs offering frequent payments (daily, weekly, or monthly) predominantly rely on traditional bank accounts. Figure B2.2.1 shows that 67 percent of programs with frequent payments use traditional accounts or mobile money accounts. Payment frequency can be limited by the high cost of manual cash delivery. Therefore, programs that use fully functional (transaction) accounts— such as traditional bank or mobile money accounts—can enable more frequent disbursements while providing safer, more cost-effective, and more accessible transfers. In addition, regular payments encourage beneficiaries to engage more with financial services, build confidence in using financial tools, and enhance their ability to manage cash flow effectively. As a result, frequent and predictable social protection payments can play a crucial role in improving financial inclusion, as they allow recipients to better plan their personal finances and savings. FIGURE B2.2.1: Distribution of social assistance programs by payment methods and frequency of benefits

Percentage of programs 100

8% 2%

18% 5%

9% 2%

25% 5%

19%

25%

17%

5% 33%

25%

16% 21%

24%

19%

42%

40%

50%

44% 30%

0 Frequent (Daily/ Weekly/ Monthly) (n=157)

Periodic (Bimonthly/ Semi Annual & Annual One-time lump-sum Quarterly) (n=47) (n=16) (n=37)

Other (n=6)

Traditional account Traditional & mobile money accounts Mobile money account Source: World Bank, ASPIRE - https://www.worldbank.org/aspire. Digital non-account Unspecified Manual only Note: This analysis is based on only 263 programs across 101 countries. The “Other” benefit frequency category includes varied schedules such as milestone-based installments, mixed intervals (for example, monthly and quarterly), payments tied to specific prenatal or postnatal health check-ups, and payments made at unspecified times.

Current State of Payment Methods Used by Social Assistance Programs

| 17

2.2. Payment Service Providers: Types, Selection Process, and Recipient Choice19 This section examines key features of how social assistance payments—whether delivered through digital, manual, or mix of digital and manual methods—are implemented. It focuses on three core dimensions: (a) the type of PSPs responsible for issuing accounts in account-based payment arrangements, (b) the contracting practices used to engage PSPs, and (c) whether recipients can choose among different providers. Best practices highlight the importance of a diverse and regulated provider ecosystem—including banks, mobile network operators (MNOs), MFIs, and fintech—alongside procurement, user choice, and widespread access points to enhance inclusion, efficiency, and user experience.

Type of Payment Service Providers20 Programs can leverage different types of PSPs to deliver social assistance payments. For countries offering account-based payments, the type of PSP offering bank accounts to beneficiaries can include state-owned banks (including commercial and postal banks) or private commercial banks, non-bank e-money providers, and MFIs or cooperatives, including SACCOs. Whether countries leverage one or several types of these institutions depends on market availability (largely influenced by the country’s regulatory framework) as well as program preferences and constraints. Additionally, the decision to use a single provider within a given type of institution or multiple providers is shaped by national procurement rules, program preferences, legacy arrangements, and the geographical availability of access points. State-owned and private commercial banks are the most commonly used PSPs for account-based payments across the countries in the report sample. Approximately 60 percent of the countries analyzed (59 out of 99) rely exclusively on state-owned or private commercial banks as their sole PSP (see figure D.1 in the annex). Private commercial banks are predominant in Latin America and the Caribbean, Europe and Central Asia, and Middle East, North Africa, Afghanistan, and Pakistan, where they are used by over 80 percent of countries. State-owned commercial banks are also widely presented in South Asia and Latin America and the Caribbean. In contrast, postal banks have a lower incidence overall, except in Middle East, North Africa, Afghanistan, and Pakistan, where they are found in 70 percent of countries (see figure 2.9). Banks can offer significant advantages, particularly by leveraging extensive distribution networks— including bank branches, ATMs, banking agents (branchless banking), mobile banking, and e-banking—to efficiently deliver payments. However, compared to mobile money operators, banks may lack sufficient geographical coverage, especially in remote or underserved areas, due to increased costs and logistical complexities. Expanding into low-density or rural areas often involves limited economies of scale, lower transaction volumes, and higher operational risks, making it less commercially viable for banks. In contrast, mobile money operators typically rely on agent-based models that are more flexible, cost-effective, and easier to scale in hard-to-reach areas, enabling broader and more rapid coverage. State-owned banks play an important role in delivering social assistance payments in 52 out of 99 countries (53 percent) where data are available (see figure 2.9). In 12 of these countries, they are the sole PSP available. However, exclusive reliance on a stated-owned bank can undermine competition, potentially resulting in reduced service quality, limited beneficiary access points, higher operational costs, and increased institutional dependency. Still, stated-owned banks can serve as a viable alternative when private commercial banks show limited interest in serving vulnerable populations. Some public banks have also developed simplified products specifically designed for beneficiaries of social assistance

This section is based on data from 99 countries with available information on PSPs, out of a total of 113 countries in the sample that use digital accounts.

20 This section focuses only on those PSP issuing account-based payments. While some of these providers may also disburse payments through manual means, such arrangements are not included in this section.

18 | Digitalization of Social Assistance Payments: A Stocktaking

programs or have established tariff agreements with state entities reducing the price for services. In Brazil, Caixa Econômica Federal has developed two special products for beneficiaries of government programs: the Caixa Tem savings account and the digital social savings account (Poupança Social Digital and Poupança Caixa Tem) (Caixa Econômica Federal 2026).21 FIGURE 2.9: Distribution of payment service providers (PSP) in countries implementing accountbased payments

Percentage of countries by PSP used by programs 88%

83%

72%

70%

70 60

83%

80%

79%

57% 57%

67%

57% 53%

50 40

39% 29%

30 20

38%

18%

17%

14% 13%

13%

EAP (n=7)

ECA (n=24)

26% 19%

10%

17%

14%

SSA (n=28)

20%

29%

17%

10%

10 0

40%

LAC (n=24)

MENAAP (n=11)

SAR (n=5)

Total (n=99)

(Countries may used more than one type of PSP) State-owned bank

Private bank

Postal bank

Non-bank e-money provider

MFIs or Cooperatives

Source: World Bank, ASPIRE - https://www.worldbank.org/aspire. Note: This analysis is based on 99 out of 123 countries, covering 266 out of 383 programs in the sample that use account-based payments in at least one program. Analysis conducted at the country level. Cooperatives = Cooperative financial institutions.

While banks remain the dominant providers for payment services, a significant number of countries have diversified their payment delivery by incorporating non-bank providers Specifically, 26 percent of countries include non-bank e-money providers as one of their PSPs (see figure 2.9). In Sub-Saharan Africa, while banks are used in about one-third of programs, a substantial share relies on non-bank e-money providers and on a mix of all three provider types—banks, e-money providers, and MFIs or cooperatives. East Asia and Pacific also features a notable share of programs that rely on MFIs or cooperatives, alongside banks and e-money providers. Latin America and the Caribbean stands out for its high use of a combination of all three provider types. These patterns reflect differences in financial ecosystems, regulatory environments, and efforts to expand coverage in remote or underserved areas. Payments delivered through non-bank e-money providers offer significant advantages in terms of reach, leveraging the widespread global penetration of mobile phones. However, the effectiveness of non-bank e-money providers depends heavily on regulatory frameworks that authorize and clearly define their operation. Additionally, non-bank e-money providers must maintain extensive retail outlet networks to facilitate easy cash-out options for beneficiaries. Recognizing this, several countries have developed hybrid models in which non-bank e-money providers collaborate with traditional financial institutions, primarily banks, to provide integrated mobile money services.

Caixa Econômica Federal. “Poupança Social Digital CAIXA Tem.” Official webpage, available at: https://www.caixa.gov.br/voce/ poupanca-e-investimentos/poupanca-social-digital-caixa-tem/

Current State of Payment Methods Used by Social Assistance Programs

| 19

Country-level contexts further illustrate the importance of engaging multiple provider types to ensure coverage. For example, Ecuador has a significant cooperative sector, and the involvement of both banks and cooperatives in the social assistance payment delivery system is crucial for reaching rural populations effectively. Together, they provide services to 50 percent of the localities in the country. However, the remaining areas are divided into localities that either have only banking institutions or only cooperatives. Banks serve as the sole financial institution in 40 percent of the localities, where approximately 248,000 G2P beneficiaries reside. In contrast, cooperatives serve the remaining 10 percent of localities, supporting nearly 25,000 beneficiaries (World Bank 2020).

Selection of Payment Service Providers and Recipient Choice The procurement and selection of PSPs play a crucial role in shaping the efficiency, accessibility, and financial inclusion outcomes of social assistance programs. Governments engage PSPs through various approaches, ranging from direct appointments and regulatory mandates to competitive bidding or open market models. Contracts may include fixed-cost arrangements with state banks, negotiated fees, or no formal agreement at all (Lindert et al. 2020). In some cases, beneficiaries are allowed to choose their own PSP in the market, fostering market competition. About 20 percent of the countries in the sample are delivering their program benefits directly, without procuring PSPs, and are instead leveraging existing providers in the market (see figure 2.10). In contrast, 35 percent of countries (35 out of 100) procure multiple PSPs. Engaging more than one provider can be necessary to meet the diverse needs of recipients. Several factors influence the selection and engagement of PSPs, including recipients’ access to both traditional and mobile money accounts, their familiarity with mobile technologies, the proximity of households to cash-out points, and prevailing social norms. These considerations help ensure that the selected PSPs are well suited to the local context and the needs of the target population. Meanwhile, in 40 percent of the countries, programs procured a single PSP. Among these, about 40 percent of the sole-procured PSPs for account payments are state-owned or private commercial banks. Similarly, in cases where no procurement is involved, banks also dominate, accounting for 76 percent of those instances. Regional differences exist in the number of PSPs procured by programs delivering social assistance payments. As seen in figure 2.10, in Latin America and the Caribbean, nearly half of the countries implement programs that exclusively procure multiple PSPs, while in SAR, no programs do. East Asia and Pacific and South Asia on the other hand, have a higher percentage of countries with programs procuring a single PSP (57 and 40 percent respectively). In addition, half of the countries in Europe and Central Asia do not procure PSPs, compared to 5 percent in Latin America and the Caribbean. FIGURE 2.10: Percentage of countries by type of procurement of PSPs Total (n=100) LAC (n=22)

18%

50%

SSA (n=32) ECA (n=22)

27%

MENAAP (n=12)

25%

EAP (n=7)

27%

28%

40%

20%

40% 30

14%

57%

17%

25%

33%

14%

50%

18%

SAR (n=5) 0

22%

44%

21%

19%

25%

35%

100

Percentage of countries Multiple PSP procured

Single PSP procured

No PSP procured

Mix Approach

Source: World Bank, ASPIRE - https://www.worldbank.org/aspire. Note: The analysis includes 266 programs across 100 countries with data on PSP procurement. The “Mix approach” refers to countries with single, multiple, or no PSP procurement among its social assistance programs. PSPs: Payment service providers.

20 | Digitalization of Social Assistance Payments: A Stocktaking

Programs with a well-designed payment delivery process engage multiple PSPs, allowing beneficiaries to select the provider that best meets their needs (World Bank 2022c). When recipients have the freedom to choose, they can select PSPs that offer greater convenience, such as being located closer to their residence or workplace, charging lower withdrawal fees, providing higher service quality, or meeting other personal preferences. For this analysis, this report defines “Open Choice” when social protection programs allow recipients to choose from any PSP available in the market; “Limited Choice” refers to situations where recipients can select from a restricted set of PSPs; “No Choice” applies when recipients have no options to choose from; and “Mixed Approach” refers to countries combining elements of no choice, limited choice, or open choice.22 Recipient’s choice can be facilitated by shifting from traditional procurement models of selecting a single “best-fit” provider to establishing minimum service standards that enable participation by multiple qualified providers. This approach expands the pool of eligible providers, fostering competition, improving service quality, and enhancing recipient choice (Cook and Lennox 2023). For instance, Kenya’s “Inua Jamii Program” allows recipients to select their preferred provider from a list of qualified options. The government adapted its procurement process to facilitate contracts with multiple banks, showcasing a flexible strategy to improve service delivery and recipient choice (Mckay et al. 2020). On the other hand, India’s has adopted different models in programs like the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Program (MGNREGA) and the National Social Assistance Program, where no specific PSPs are procured. Instead, these programs are open to all payment system participants, allowing recipients to choose from any provider in the market.23 The approaches implemented by social assistance programs vary across countries. Only 21 percent of the countries in the sample have implemented open choice in all their programs (figure 2.11a). For instance, in Ecuador, India, and Costa Rica, recipients can choose any PSP in the market to receive their payments and can use their existing accounts for this purpose. Allowing recipients to receive their payment into their existing accounts might be more convenient, as opening a new account can incur additional costs for the recipients, and they may not utilize it if they already have a preferred account. This percentage increases to 30 percent when countries that have adopted open choice in at least one of their programs are included. In addition, programs in 22 percent of the countries have made efforts to include a range of multiple PSPs, offering limited choice to recipients. Other countries (19 percentage) present mixed approaches, as seen in Haiti and Morocco, where certain programs have no choice at all while others provide a limited selection, allowing recipients to choose from a predefined list of providers. Providing no choice of PSP is still the most common approach among countries. About 38 percent of the countries assign program recipients to a specific provider, even if multiple PSPs participate in the payment disbursement. For example, Madagascar does not provide any choice, even when several PSPs are contracted to manage payments. Likewise, in Nepal, the Social Security Subsidy program partners with specific banks and financial institutions at the local level, resulting in multiple PSPs being engaged in different areas; however, recipients cannot choose their provider. In Angola’s Kwenda program, despite contracting several PSPs, recipients are assigned specific providers based on their region. The degree of recipient choice in selecting PSPs varies significantly across regions. Based on available data, Europe and Central Asia stands out with the highest incidence of open choice, where 15 out of 26 countries allow recipients to select any provider in the market (see figure 2.11b). In contrast, East Asia and Pacific and Sub-Saharan Africa reflect a more restricted environment, with many countries falling into the “no choice” or “limited choice” categories. Latin America and the Caribbean and the Middle East, North Africa, Afghanistan, and Pakistan display a more mixed landscape, with a notable share of countries adopting hybrid models that blend elements of no choice, limited, and open choice approaches. Similarly, in South Asia, two out of five countries have a mixed approach, and two countries offer no choice. These variations highlight differing policy and market environments for recipient choice in payment delivery. 22 Choice can refer not only to the selection of the PSP but also to the ability of recipients to choose the type of financial product (for example, bank account versus mobile money account) or whether to use an existing or new account. However, in this section, the analysis of “choice” is limited to the ability to choose among PSPs, as this is the only data available in ASPIRE. 23 In India, aspects of disbursement and service delivery are managed through national payment systems for disbursement.

Current State of Payment Methods Used by Social Assistance Programs

| 21

FIGURE 2.11: Choice of PSPs offered by social assistance programs a. Percentage of countries (total)

b. Percentage of countries (by regions) ECA (n=26)

60 40

22%

MENAAP (n=13)

46%

SAR (n=5)

40%

38%

19%

4% 23%

15%

21%

EAP (n=7)

Mix Open choice Approach No choice

Limited choice

15%

23%

20%

40%

30%

SSA (n=33) Limited choice

15%

57%

LAC (n=23)

No choice

58%

14% 30%

55%

14%

30%

9% 3% 18%

24%

Mix Approach

Open choice

100

Source: World Bank, ASPIRE - https://www.worldbank.org/aspire. Note: Analysis based on 306 programs across 107 countries. The figure shows the percentage of countries in each region classified under one of four categories. Countries under “no choice” are those where all programs assign a provider to recipients in the country. “Limited choice” refers to countries where all programs in the country offer recipients a selection among a limited set of providers. “Open choice” includes countries where all programs in the country allow recipients to choose any provider in the market. Countries with a “mix approach” refer to countries that combine elements of no choice, limited choice, or open choice. PSPs: Payment service providers.

Countries offering open choice across all their programs tend to have high account penetration and high usage of digital payments (see figure 2.12). In countries where recipients are given open choice, there is typically a higher median level of account ownership and usage of digital payments compared to environments with more restrictive or no choice. This suggests that a well-developed and interoperable payment ecosystem, supported by strong ID systems and digital infrastructure, is a key enabler for expanding choice and fostering greater financial inclusion. In contrast, countries with limited digital infrastructure and weaker regulatory frameworks may face challenges in implementing openchoice models, requiring targeted reforms to enhance interoperability and accessibility. For example, Costa Rica has successfully implemented the International Bank Account Number (IBAN) as an account identifier. This allows IMAS (the Social Welfare Institute) to establish a model of open account choice for receiving monetary transfers. As a result, IMAS can simply request beneficiaries to provide the 16 digits of their IBAN to indicate the account where they wish to receive the funds from monetary transfers. The country boasts high levels of financial inclusion (around 70 percent), an advanced digital ID system with 95 percent coverage, and an interoperable, instant payment infrastructure, including the National Electronic Payment System (SINPE). As governments work toward more inclusive and efficient payment models, ensuring recipient choice must go hand in hand with financial education initiatives and communicational strategies. The transition to an open choice scheme must be accompanied by an effective communication strategy that disseminates key messages to beneficiaries in a simple and timely manner. Although the option for open choice may be available in the country, it is likely that, without an effective communications strategy, beneficiaries living in remote areas will remain unaware of their options. As a result, they may continue to rely on the only option that has traditionally been provided to them. Likewise, equipping beneficiaries with knowledge and tools to navigate PSP options empowers them to make informed decisions, ultimately strengthening the impact of social assistance programs. In addition to offering payment instrument choice, the availability of numerous and widely accessible access points is crucial for effective social assistance delivery (see Box 2.3).

22 | Digitalization of Social Assistance Payments: A Stocktaking

FIGURE 2.12: Choice of PSP by account ownership and usage of digital payments

Percentage of adults with account

Percentage of account holders who made a digital payment

100

80 80 60

0 No choice

Limited choice

Mix

Open choice

Source: World Bank; ASPIRE - https://www.worldbank.org/aspire; Findex 2021–2022-2024. Note: Data available for 107 of 123 countries. Analysis conducted at the country level. Countries under “no choice” are those where all programs assign a provider to recipients in the country. “Limited choice” refers to countries where all programs in the country offer recipients a selection among a limited set of providers. “Open choice” includes countries where all programs in the country allow recipients to choose any provider in the market. Countries with a “mix approach” refer to countries that combine elements of no choice, limited choice, or open choice. PSPs: Payment service providers.

Box 2.3: Access points The availability and accessibility of access/payment points play a crucial role in effectively delivering digital and manual payments. Access points for withdrawing payments differ depending on the payment method. Bank accounts are typically accessed via ATMs or bank branches, whereas mobile wallets are generally used through mobile money agents. Access points can also include post offices and specific payment locations; such as community centers, government offices, or other designated payment points. However, the choice and utilization of payment points vary significantly by region. For instance, social assistance programs in ECA Europe and Central Asia commonly use post offices, while in Sub-Saharan Africa and Latin America and the Caribbean, they use agents and local merchants more frequently (see figure B2.3.1). Bank branches and ATMs are the most prevalent payment points at the country level, utilized by 77 out of 110 countries (70 percent). This trend aligns closely with the widespread selection of banks as PSPs: out of 89 countries using banks as one of their PSPs, 70 employ bank branches and/or ATMs as their primary payment points. This underscores the strong correlation between the choice of commercial banks as PSPs and the subsequent reliance on banking infrastructure for delivering payments. (Continued)

Current State of Payment Methods Used by Social Assistance Programs

| 23

(Continued) FIGURE B2.3.1: Number of countries by type of payment point, among those using digital payments Number of countries 25

20 20

11 10 7 5

5 3

6 3

2 2

7 4

5 5 3

5 3 1

0 SSA (n=87, N=35) EAP (n=23, N=8)

ECA (n=51, N=23) LAC (n=104, N=25) MENA (n=23, N=12) SAR (n=17, N=7)

A country can be offering more than one type of payment point N= number of countries, n= number of programs State-owned bank branch Agents or merchants Others

Private bank branch Post office

ATM Arranged payment locations

Source: World Bank, ASPIRE - https://www.worldbank.org/aspire. Note: This is a program-level analysis, where it is based on 266 programs across 102 countries utilizing digital payments and have data on payment points.

24 | Digitalization of Social Assistance Payments: A Stocktaking

3. Enablers of Digital Payment Delivery The current state of digitalization in social assistance programs depends on multiple variables including the digital and financial ecosystems, legal and regulatory environment, and policy decisions. While the ecosystem characteristics will not directly determine the level of digitalization in a country, they enable or hinder its adoption. This section analyzes some of these characteristics—such as account and ID ownership, mobile phone ownership, and financial inclusion policies—that might help explain cross-country differences in the digitalization of social assistance payments. It aims to respond to the following question: What enablers contribute to a country’s capacity to progress toward modern G2P architecture?24 It is important to note that this analysis identifies associations between ecosystem characteristics and digitalization levels, without implying direct causality.

Account Ownership The development level of a country’s financial ecosystem can play an important role in facilitating—or hindering—the adoption of digital payments in social assistance programs. Factors such as the level of account ownership across the population, the ease with which individuals can open these accounts, the availability of access points for withdrawing or transacting digitally, and the number and type of PSPs in the market are among the many characteristics of a financial ecosystem that can make the rollout of digital cash transfers more feasible and impactful for recipients. This analysis focuses specifically on account ownership. Countries with higher account ownership are also more likely to digitalize their social assistance payments. Not surprisingly, these countries show a greater degree of digitalization; in fact, one in three has adopted only digital payment methods, while the remaining use a combination of digital and manual payment methods (see figure 3.1). High levels of account ownership indicate more developed financial ecosystems, which typically feature an established network of financial access points and a strong supply of suitable financial products. In some countries, even individuals from lower-income households already have accounts that can be used to receive government payments, reducing the need to open new accounts. This enables governments to more easily roll out digital social assistance payments without having to assist in account opening, incentivize PSPs to establish access points, or develop alternative distribution methods for underserved regions. Countries with lower levels of account ownership are less likely to adopt digital payments, relying more on manual payments either exclusively or in some of their programs. Among these countries, 17 percent have not yet implemented any digital payments and continue to use only manual methods (see figure 3.1). Beyond the challenges of digitalizing social assistance payments in countries with less developed financial ecosystems, this correlation may also reflect a broader gap in financial inclusion— one that digitalization itself could help bridge. FIGURE 3.1: Percentage of countries by level of account ownership and type of payment mechanism Low

22%

61%

29%

Middle

17% 66%

37%

High 0

5% 63%

30 Digital only

60 50 70 Percentage of countries

Mix of digital and manual

100

Manual only

Sources: World Bank, ASPIRE - https://www.worldbank.org/aspire, and Global Findex 2024. Note: Data available for 99 of 123 countries. The account ownership level thresholds have been calculated as the sample mean ±1 standard deviation, based on the sample of countries included in the analysis and for which information is available in the Global Findex. The thresholds are as follows: Low <39% (n = 18); Middle: 39%–84% (n = 62); and High >84% (n = 19). 24 For more information on the design principles and pillars of a modern G2P architecture, see https://documents.worldbank.org/ en/publication/documents-reports/documentdetail/099600110202238143/p173166068e4220430a0ff03279b01c83db.

Enablers of Digital Payment Delivery

| 25

In countries with lower levels of account ownership, mobile money appears to be a preferred option for digitalizing social assistance payments. Figure 3.2 shows that among these countries, 27 percent have implemented mobile money, and an additional 53 percent have adopted a hybrid approach, with both mobile money and traditional bank accounts. In many developing countries, a significant portion of the population lacks access to traditional banking services—often due to the limited availability of bank branches in rural areas, high account maintenance fees, or strict documentation requirements. In such contexts, mobile money accounts offer a viable alternative, as they can typically be opened with minimal requirements and do not rely on physical banking infrastructure. See Box 3.1, which further explores the payment methods countries use to reach beneficiaries in rural and remote areas. Digital non-account-based payment methods are also used, though they are present in fewer than 13 percent of countries with lower account ownership. While these mechanisms can deliver payments quickly and flexibly in environments, they do not contribute to the financial inclusion of recipients.

FIGURE 3.2: Percentage of countries by level of account ownership and type of digital payment mechanism

Low

53%

Middle

32%

High

39%

21% 0

27%

13% 14%

15%

74% 20

5% 70

100

Percentage of countries Traditional account

Traditional and mobile money accounts

Digital non-account

Unspecified

Mobile money account

Sources: World Bank, ASPIRE - https://www.worldbank.org/aspire, and Global Findex 2024. Note: Data available for 93 of 123 countries. Countries that use only manual payment methods are not included in this sample. The “digital non-account” category includes only payments made through digital non-accounts. Other categories may also involve digital non-account but are classified primarily on the presence of account-based methods. For example, “traditional accounts” may include both but are labeled as traditional. The thresholds are as follows: Low <39% (n = 18); Middle: 39%–84% (n = 62); and High >84% (n = 19).

Countries with lower account ownership are more likely to use limited-purpose accounts. More than one-third of these countries with low account ownership disburse payments exclusively through limited-purpose accounts, thereby missing the opportunities to facilitate broader financial inclusion (figure 3.3). As countries improve their levels of financial inclusion, they are increasingly likely to use transaction accounts, whether new or existing, for social assistance recipients. However, in the sample analyzed, there remains a percentage of countries with high level of account ownership that rely on limited accounts: about 11 percent of these countries still use a combination of fully functional accounts and limited-purpose accounts. Limited-purpose accounts are designed differently depending on the contextual challenges of the financial ecosystem and the objectives of the government. For instance, in Angola, limited-purpose accounts were established to address the challenge of beneficiaries lacking the necessary ID documents to open an account. As a solution, a main account was opened in the name of the social protection agency, and sub-accounts were created for each beneficiary without any official documentation requirements on their part. In other contexts, limited accounts may be established to restrict the types of expenditure allowed with cash transfers. In some countries, arrangements with PSPs ensure that funds can only be used in specific POS locations. This means beneficiaries are restricted to shopping at designated stores and may be limited to purchasing specific items such as food; this is case of the Bolsa Social program in Guatemala. Limited accounts also allow government officials to oversee how the cash transfer has been utilized.

26 | Digitalization of Social Assistance Payments: A Stocktaking

FIGURE 3.3: Percentage of countries by level of account ownership and account functionality

Low

62%

Middle

64%

38% 20%

High

15%

89% 0

Fully functional account

50 60 Percentage of countries

11% 70

Mix of fully functional and limited-purpose accounts

100

Limited-purpose account

Sources: World Bank, ASPIRE - https://www.worldbank.org/aspire, and Global Findex 2024. Note: Data available for 91 of 123 countries. This sample does not include countries that deploy only manual payments. The thresholds are as follows: Low <39% (n = 18); Middle: 39%–84% (n = 62); and High >84% (n = 19).

ID Ownership Lower ID ownership in countries could hinder their ability to adopt digital payment methods. Approximately 850 million people around the world do not have an official ID, with many more not having a digitally verifiable identification.25 Having an ID is often necessary not only to register and confirm eligibility of beneficiaries but also to open an account if payments are digitalized. When analyzing country’s levels of ID ownership against the payment methods used in social assistance programs, there is a clear correlation of countries with lower ID-ownership levels leveraging manual payments more heavily (figure 3.4). In this analysis, we focus on ID ownership among adults in the bottom 40th percentile in the country’s income distribution, as a proxy for social assistance beneficiaries. In countries where programs continue to deliver payments manually, 88 percent of these adults have an ID, whereas in countries using digital or mixed payment approaches, this percentage increases to 95 percent. FIGURE 3.4: Percentage of adults in the poorest 40 percent with ID, by payment mechanisms

ID ownership - poorest 40% 100

80 60 40

20 0 Digital only

Manual only

Mix of digital and manual method

Sources: World Bank, ASPIRE - https://www.worldbank.org/aspire, and ID4D 2021. Note: Analysis based on the share of adults in the bottom 40 percent of the income distribution in 80 of 123 countries with available data.

25 For more data and analysis, see https://id4d.worldbank.org/global-dataset.

Enablers of Digital Payment Delivery

| 27

However, mobile money seems to be a digital option even among countries with lower ID ownership levels. While regulations vary across countries, it is more common for low value-accounts such as mobile money accounts to have lower or more flexible account opening requirements, including the need and type of IDs accepted, compared to traditional accounts (International Telecommunication Union and World Bank 2022; Klapper et al. 2022). This was particularly evident during the COVID-19 pandemic, when some countries implemented exceptions or relaxed requirements for opening mobile money accounts to enable social assistance programs to more easily reach financially excluded populations— as seen in the Democratic Republic of Congo and Mozambique. Figure 3.5 shows the distribution of ID ownership among the poorest adults by type of digital payment method used to deliver social assistance in the country. Countries leveraging mobile money as their payment method have lower ID ownership than those using other digital payments. In particular, the median share of the poorest adults possessing a formal ID in these countries is only 62 percent, compared to 95 percent for countries using traditional accounts and 97 percent for those using a combination of payment instruments (figure 3.5). FIGURE 3.5: Percentage of adults in the poorest 40 percent with ID, by type of digital payment mechanism

ID ownership - poorest 40% 100

20 Traditional account

Traditional and mobile money accounts

Mobile money account

Countries with lower ID coverage and without modern regulatory frameworks are more likely to rely solely on limited-purpose accounts. Data show that countries are more likely to use limited-purpose accounts if they have low levels of identification, have not implemented a modern regulatory framework that facilitates simplified KYC or CDD procedures, and have not facilitated the entry of Non-Bank E-Money Issuers (NBEI) institutions. The lack of ID is a major barrier to financial inclusion. Countries with low ID ownership levels (~87 percent) are more likely to rely on limited accounts, while countries with high or full ID ownership—with median levels of 94 percent for mixed accounts and 97 percent for functional accounts—tend to use either a mixed approach or predominantly fully functional accounts (figure 3.6). Furthermore, the absence of adequate regulations hinders the development of a more inclusive financial ecosystem. Without regulatory frameworks that allow for simplified KYC and CDD procedures for low-risk customers or the participation of NBEIs in their markets, financial service providers cannot offer accessible products with fewer documentation requirements, limiting the alternatives available to marginalized populations (see figures D.2 and D.3 in the annex).

28 | Digitalization of Social Assistance Payments: A Stocktaking

FIGURE 3.6: Percentage of adults in the poorest 40 percent with identification, by type of account functionality

ID ownership - poorest 40% 100

20 Fully functional account

Mix of fully functional & limited-purpose account

Limited-purpose account

Connectivity and Mobile Phone Ownership Countries with a higher proportion of their population covered by 2G mobile networks are often better positioned to adopt digital payment solutions. Countries in the sample relying exclusively on manual payment methods have an average network coverage rate of 87 percent, compared to those that primarily utilize digital payment (96 percent) (figure 3.7). Although 2G does not offer high-speed connectivity like more modern networks, it does provide the basic connectivity needed for simple electronic transactions and is one of the essential prerequisites for digital payments. Once a population is covered by the 2G network, it opens various digital options, such as cashless payment mechanisms, OTPs sent via text messages, and mobile money accounts managed through USSD technology.26 In contexts where access to traditional banking infrastructure is limited, this basic mobile network coverage can play a crucial role in driving financial inclusion through digital means. Even when mobile phone ownership is limited, social assistance programs may distribute phones to facilitate digital payments. Countries that disburse funds through mobile money accounts show lower mobile phone ownership rates (80 percent) compared to those that used traditional accounts (figure 3.8). This is largely because 2G networks support more affordable devices, making them easier to obtain. In many cases, social protection authorities distribute mobile phones to enable payments. For example, in Mozambique, the government collaborated with a PSP to identify areas with 2G connectivity, facilitating payments through mobile money accounts. Due to the limited ownership of mobile phones among beneficiaries, the government officials decided to distribute feature mobile phones and SIM cards. While payments could be made, there were challenges in supplying the required number of mobile phones, among other logistical issues, including high storage and distribution costs. In other countries, such as Angola, the government also provided mobile phones, but the associated costs were considerably high and not sustainable as a long-term payment mechanism. 26 Unstructured Supplementary Service Data (USSD) is a communication technology controlled by MNOs, widely used to deliver mobile financial services on almost any mobile phone, at low cost, and without requiring access to the user’s SIM card. USSD is based on interactive menus, making it easy to use even on basic devices without internet access. USSD establishes a real-time connection during a session, allowing for fast, two-way interaction between the user and the service provider.

Enablers of Digital Payment Delivery

| 29

FIGURE 3.7: Percentage of population within 2G mobile network, by payment mechanism

Percentage 96%

100

96% 87%

90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Digital only

Mix of digital and manual

Manual only

Sources: World Bank, ASPIRE - https://www.worldbank.org/aspire, and International Telecommunication Union (ITU) database. Note: Data available for 115 of 123 countries.

FIGURE 3.8: Percentage of population owning mobile phones, by digital payment methods

Percentage 100 90 80

88%

80% 67%

70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

Traditional account

Mix traditional and mobile accounts

Mobile money accounts

Digital non account

Sources: World Bank, ASPIRE - https://www.worldbank.org/aspire, and Global Findex 2024. Note: Data available for 79 of 123 countries.

Financial Inclusion Policy Countries implementing financial inclusion policies, including digitalization of large government payment streams, show positive impacts in social assistance digitalization. The digitalization of large government payment streams is one of the most frequently employed policy to promote financial inclusion (World Bank 2023b). Results indicate that among the 38 countries that implemented financial inclusion policies through G2P digitalization, a higher share—37 percent—use digital methods exclusively across all programs in the sample, compared to just 21 percent of countries without such policies (figure 3.9). Many of these initiatives are part of national financial inclusion strategies, which generate spaces for technical cooperation between social protection and financial sector authorities, in addition to the private sector.

30 | Digitalization of Social Assistance Payments: A Stocktaking

FIGURE 3.9: Percentage of countries with and without financial inclusion policies via G2P

Policy to promote financial inclusion: G2P Digitization

digitalization, by type of payment mechanism

Yes (n=38)

37%

No (n=34)

58%

21%

79%

40 50 60 Percentage of countries

Digital only

Mix digital and manual

Manual only

100

Sources: World Bank, ASPIRE - https://www.worldbank.org/aspire, and FICP Survey. Note: Data available for 70 of 123 countries.

While these enablers discussed in this section are essential, digitalization still faces significant challenges. Box 3.3 outlines the key challenges and risks that can emerge even when digitalizing G2P payments.

Box 3.1: Delivering payments to the last mile27 Nearly 9 percent of countries with a high rural population (countries with 50 percent or more of their population living in rural areas) rely exclusively on manual payments for G2P disbursements, highlighting a significant opportunity to initiate a progressive digitalization process (figure B3.1.1). Rural areas often face challenges such as inadequate communication infrastructure, limited access to technology, poor road conditions, and a lack of financial services, making the implementation of digital payments less feasible. However, some countries with large rural populations have begun to adopt digital payment methods, specifically targeting areas that are best equipped to implement these solutions. Among the countries that have adopted digital payments, half of those in the sample with high rural populations have utilized mobile money as a payment method (Figure B3.1.2). This validates the importance of mobile money in regions that are difficult to reach with traditional banking services. It is crucial to emphasize that the digitalization of payments should be a gradual process, influenced by the infrastructure and facilitators available in each country. Consequently, payment strategies tend to be mixed, utilizing both manual and digital methods. (See Box 3.2: “Toward the Digitalization of Cash Transfer Payments in Ecuador”). FIGURE B 3.1.1: Percentage of countries by rurality level and type of payment mechanism

High rurality

26%

Low rurality

27% 0

64%

69% 20

Digital only

40 50 60 Percentage of countries

4% 70

Mix of digital and manual methods

100

Manual only

Sources: World Bank, ASPIRE - https://www.worldbank.org/aspire, and World Bank World Development Indicators. Note: Data available for 115 of 123 countries. Countries are classified based on rurality according to the proportion of their population residing in areas designated as rural by national statistical authorities: those with 50 percent or more of their population living in rural areas are considered to have high rurality, while those with less than 50percent are considered to have low rurality.

(Continued)

27 The term “last mile” refers to a country’s most remote rural areas.

Enablers of Digital Payment Delivery

| 31

(Continued) FIGURE B 3.1.2: Percentage of countries by rurality level and type of digital payments

HIgh rurality

31%

36%

31%

3% 2%

Low rurality

45% 0

48% 30

5% 80

100

Percentage of countries Traditional accounts Mobile money accounts

Traditional & mobile money accounts Digital non accounts

Sources: World Bank, ASPIRE - https://www.worldbank.org/aspire, and World Bank World Development Indicators. Note: Data available for 115 of 123 countries. The category “digital non-account” indicates that the only payment method is through digital non-accounts. Other categories may also include digital non-accounts. For example, the “traditional accounts” category could refer to both traditional accounts and digital nonaccounts, but it has been classified solely as traditional. Countries are classified based on rurality according to the proportion of their population residing in areas designated as rural by national statistical authorities: those with 50 percent or more of their population living in rural areas are considered to have high rurality, while those with less than 50 percent are considered to have low rurality.

Box 3.2: Toward the digitalization of cash transfer payments in Ecuador In 2019, Ecuador embarked on a gradual process to digitalize its social protection transfers through a project called “Pago Seguro” (Secure Payment). This initiative aimed to modernize the delivery of social assistance and promote financial inclusion. However, its successful implementation hinged on strategic political decisions and the availability of robust digital infrastructure within the country. It also encountered challenges related to institutional capacity and the imperative for appropriate regulatory frameworks. In 2020, 85 percent of beneficiaries received their transfers over the counter, while 15 percent opted for account deposits. To maximize the participation of financial institutions, the requirement for prior authorization was removed in 2021, allowing all institutions connected to the Central Bank’s Interbank Payment System to participate in the payments by the Ministry of Economic and Social Inclusion (MIES). In 2022, the Mil Días (A Thousand Days) program was launched, mandating that payments be made via account deposits, with OTC payments permitted only during the first four months. That same year, communication campaigns were launched to promote the use of account deposits. These efforts included radio and social media messages, personalized text messages, and training sessions for MIES personnel. As a result, the use of account deposits increased significantly, with 40 percent of beneficiaries utilizing this method by November 2022. In 2023, the Ecuadorian government approved the National Financial Inclusion Policy and Strategy, which prioritized the digitization of G2P. By November 2024, 75 percent of beneficiaries were reported to be receiving monetary transfers through account deposits. Despite this progress, a significant portion of beneficiaries still rely on cash payments. (Continued)

32 | Digitalization of Social Assistance Payments: A Stocktaking

(Continued) This coexistence of payment methods highlights the ongoing challenges in fully digitalizing G2P payments. Factors such as limited financial literacy, low trust in digital services, and barriers to accessing technological infrastructure continue to hinder the widespread adoption of digital payments. Maintaining both payment options accommodates the diverse needs and capabilities of beneficiaries, helping to ensure that the transition toward digitalization remains inclusive and equitable. FIGURE B3.2.1: Evolution of Ecuador’s cash transfer programs’ digitalization - 2019–2024

15% accountbased payment 85% OTC

40% accountbased payment 60% OTC

2019

2020

2021

2022

Start of the MIES Pago Seguro Project

Two coexisting payment mechanisms: • Over-thecounter payment at more than 200 PSPs • Account deposits at 96 PSPs

Elimination of the requirement for authorization to participate in the account-based payment mechanism All institutions integrated into the Central Bank’s Interbank Payment System are enabled to participate.

Mil Días Program, which from its design established the mandatory use of account deposit payments.

75% accountbased payment 25% OTC

2023 Communication strategy to promote account deposits

2024 Approval of the National Financial Inclusion Policy and Strategy, incorporating the digitization of government payments as a priority.

Source: Original figure for this report, based on Ministerial Agreements MIES 2019-071; 2022-037; 2022-049; Resolution No. JPRF-P-2023-080; World Bank 2020.

Box 3.3: Challenges and risks of digitalizing G2P payments Digitalizing G2P payments offers substantial benefits, but these gains are not automatic. Countries that have made progress in this area often emphasize that success depends not just on technology, but on the broader ecosystem. Realizing the full potential of digitalization requires intentional effort, inclusive design, and sustained investment across all parts of the delivery system. Without these, digital payments risk becoming inefficient—or even exclusionary. Key challenges in the digitalization process include the following: •

Recipients, especially those new to formal financial systems, may face difficulties when accessing their benefits digitally. Issues such as weak mobile networks, cash shortages at agent locations, and confusing payment interfaces can cause frustration and reduce trust (McKee et al. 2015; Zimmerman and BaurYazbeck, 2016). Others may encounter hidden fees, fraud, or lack of support when problems arise. These challenges are particularly harmful in contexts with low digital and financial literacy, where recipients may not fully understand how to use the system or assert their rights when something goes wrong. (Continued)

Enablers of Digital Payment Delivery

| 33

(Continued) •

Digital systems can unintentionally exclude certain groups. People living in remote or rural areas, older adults, persons with disabilities, or those without access to phones or ID documents may struggle to access digital payments. Women, in particular, face additional barriers, such as lower phone ownership, social restrictions, or lack of personal ID, which can limit their ability to receive and control payments (Klapper et al. 2021; Zimmerman et al. 2020). In low- and middle-income economies,28 only 73 percent of women had an account in 2024, compared to 78 percent of men, highlighting a persistent gender gap (Global Findex 2025). Unless programs are designed with these realities in mind, digitalization may deepen inequalities rather than reduce them.

•

The effectiveness of digital payments depends on sound design and the readiness of the broader system. Key factors—such as whether recipients receive payments into basic or fully functional accounts, have a choice of providers, and can access interoperable systems—shape whether digital transfers lead to meaningful benefits. For instance, payments into fully functional or mobile accounts can enable recipients to save, make purchases, or pay bills. But if the account is limited or only allows cash withdrawals, the broader benefits may be lost. Interoperability—such as the ability to transfer between banks or mobile networks—is also essential, as are transparency and physical infrastructure like cash-out points. Clear communication with recipients and ongoing investment in user education are critical to ensure people understand and trust the system.

•

Other challenges include data protection and privacy risks, reduced effectiveness in service provision, and long-term sustainability concerns (Gelb and Mukherjee 2020; Lowe et al. 2023; McKee et al. 2015).

In sum, digitalizing G2P payments holds great potential, but unlocking that potential requires deliberate effort, inclusive design, and sustained investment across all components of the delivery system.

28 Low- and middle-income economies as classified by the World Bank. Income group classifications reflect the World Bank income group classifications from 2020.

34 | Digitalization of Social Assistance Payments: A Stocktaking

4. Digital Payments in Adaptive Social Protection and Financial Resilience Adaptive social protection (ASP) helps build the resilience of poor and vulnerable households by investing in their capacity to prepare for, cope with, and adapt to various shocks, including economic downturns, climate-relate hazards, and public health emergencies (Bowen et al. 2020). With over a billion people globally at high risk from climate-related hazards, the need for such resilient systems is urgent (World Bank 2024). ASP operates through four building blocks pillars—programs, data and information systems, financing mechanisms, and institutional coordination—allowing for timely and scalable responses (Bowen et al. 2020). Countries’ ability to respond rapidly and effectively to shocks depends heavily on the readiness of their social protection delivery systems. This involves the integration of digital payment systems, social registries, and other enabling infrastructure. Those that had invested in these systems before a crisis— supported by robust identification, payment, and data-sharing platforms—were able to scale assistance more quickly and reach a broader share of affected populations as seen in the COVID-19 pandemic (Marin and Palacios 2022). Digital payment systems are a cornerstone of scalable and efficient delivery in ASP. Under the “programs” building block, digital payment systems play a critical role in the modern G2P architecture, by providing reliable, automated channels for benefit disbursement. Through the rapid digital transformation in many parts of the world, digital technologies such as mobile banking, digital IDs, and biometric systems can allow for more efficient targeting of beneficiaries and faster delivery of benefits. Social registries play a pivotal role in this transformation by serving as integrated platforms that centralize data on individuals and households, facilitating accurate identification and eligibility assessments for social protection programs. These registries often utilize unique identifiers, like national ID numbers, to link information across various government databases, enhancing coordination and reducing duplication of efforts. Digital payments play a vital role in strengthening financial resilience—the capacity to manage unexpected financial shocks—by improving access to formal financial services. They enable individuals to save, borrow, and manage money more effectively, enhancing their ability to navigate economic challenges and improve financial well-being. The COVID-19 pandemic accelerated the adoption of digital financial services, contributing to a sharp rise in account ownership: from 51 percent of adults globally in 2011 to 76 percent in 2021 (Klapper et al. 2021). According to the Global Findex 2025, 56 percent of adults in low- and middle-income economies could access emergency funds within 30 days.29 While some countries quickly adopted digital payments during the COVID-19 response, many have not sustained this shift across all social assistance programs, limiting the long-term benefits for financial inclusion and resilience. The COVID-19 pandemic demonstrated the potential of digital payments in reaching vulnerable populations quickly. An estimated 641.9 million recipients received a digital transfer during the pandemic, marking a major step forward for financial inclusion30 (Marin and Palacios 2022). Furthermore, during the COVID-19 pandemic, Brazil’s “Auxílio Emergencial” program used a mobile app to register informal workers and disburse payments through digital wallets within days. Many countries responded rapidly during the pandemic by adopting digital channels to reach informal and vulnerable populations. However, this momentum was not always sustained beyond emergency programs.

29 Based on the share of respondents who reported that it would be possible and either not difficult at all or somewhat difficult to access emergency funds within 30 days. Sources of funds could include family or friends, work, savings, borrowing, selling assets, or other means (Global Findex 2021). 30 According to the World Bank, financial inclusion means that individuals and businesses have access to and use affordable financial products and services that meet their needs, which are delivered in a responsible and sustainable way.

Digital Payments in Adaptive Social Protection and Financial Resilience

| 35

Notably, countries with higher exposure to climate risks have shown a greater adoption of digitalonly payment mechanisms in their social assistance programs. Specifically, 42 percent of these highrisk countries utilize exclusively digital payments, compared to just 20 percent among countries with lower risk exposure (see figure 4.1). Across all climate risk levels, most use a combination of digital and manual payments, particularly in lower-risk settings. This disparity suggests that nations facing greater vulnerabilities prioritize digital payment systems to enhance the efficiency and speed of benefit delivery, thereby strengthening financial inclusion and resilience among their populations. Challenges such as infrastructure gaps, limited ID coverage, network outages, trust issues, and segments of the population without access to mobile phones can hinder the transition to fully digital payment systems. For instance, during Typhoon Haiyan in 2013–2014, the Philippines’ conditional cash transfer program, Pantawid Pamilyang Pilipino Program (4Ps), faced disruptions in electronic payouts due to power outages and lost ATM cards. In response, the Department of Social Welfare and Development and its payment provider, Land Bank, implemented adaptive measures like deploying mobile ATMs and shifting to OTC cash disbursements to maintain beneficiary access. This experience highlighted the importance of incorporating flexible mechanisms into program designs to ensure continuity during emergencies. Digitizing social protection payments enhances both delivery capacity and transparency. Real-time digital transfers can reach dispersed, mobile, or displaced populations more effectively than traditional methods. Moreover, digital transactions generate a clear audit trail and allow automated adjustments to transfer timing and value in response to changing needs (Smith and Bowen 2020). By embracing digital solutions while maintaining flexibility, countries can build adaptive systems that protect the most vulnerable in a rapidly changing world. FIGURE 4.1: Countries’ payment modalities versus climate-hazard exposure (percentage of countries)

Percentage of countries per payment method 100 90

80 70 60 50

50% 75%

79%

40 30 42%

20 10

20%

16%

0 to 25% (low) (N=40)

>25% to 50% (medium) (N=19)

>50% to 80% (high) (N=12)

Share of people at high risk from climate-related hazards (from population) Digital only

Mix of digital and manual methods

Manual only

Source: World Bank, ASPIRE - https://www.worldbank.org/aspire; World Bank. 2024. “Counting People at High Risk from Climate-Related Hazards.” Version 2024-09. https://worldbank.github.io/counting-people-climate-risk. Note: Based on data availability, the analysis includes 71 countries from the total sample of 123. The share of people at risk to climate related hazards counts people exposed to at least one climate hazard and deprived on at least one dimension of vulnerability. The figure presents the percentage distribution of countries by their primary payment methods (digital only, mixed digital and manual, or manual only), grouped according to the share of their populations exposed to high risks from climate-related hazards. The countries are classified into three exposure levels defined by the authors as follows: (1) Low exposure: 0 to 25% of the population at high risk; (2) Medium exposure: >25 to 50% of

36 | Digitalization of Social Assistance Payments: A Stocktaking

the population at high risk; and (3) High exposure: >50 to 80% of the population at high risk. The number of countries included in each exposure category is indicated in parentheses (N). Percentages represent the share of countries within each exposure level that predominantly use each type of payment method.

While some countries quickly adopted digital payments during the COVID-19 response, many have not sustained this shift across all social assistance programs. Several COVID-response programs in our sample switched to a mixed approach, combining digital and manual methods, signaling challenges in fully leveraging digital infrastructure beyond emergencies. This reflects issues such as limited digital capacity, a preference for hybrid systems, and the intentional retention of manual methods to ensure resilience and continuity in benefit delivery. This was the case for some programs in Argentina, Benin, Brazil, Cabo Verde, Cameroon, Honduras, Morocco, and Panama. These shifts underscore persistent barriers to full digital adoption and highlight the need for continued investment and structural reforms in national payment infrastructures to enable permanent, efficient, and inclusive digital delivery systems. Other COVID19 response programs that initially relied on account-based payments introduced nonaccount digital options. This was the case in Bangladesh and Brazil, reflecting adaptations to program objectives, recipient needs, and the prevailing payment ecosystem. Conversely, programs in Guatemala that were already offering non-account-based benefits expanded to include fully functional digital accounts. These cases underscore that the path toward digitalization is not linear but rather a dynamic process shaped by each country’s context.

Digital Payments in Adaptive Social Protection and Financial Resilience

| 37

5. Conclusion This report draws on novel administrative data from the ASPIRE, covering 383 cash-based social assistance programs across 123 countries. This rich and harmonized dataset enables cross-country comparability of the main payment delivery mechanisms used across programs and includes a set of key variables that shed light on how social assistance is paid. The quantitative analysis is further complemented by global data sources and qualitative insights from country-level reports. Building on this unique evidence base, the report provides a snapshot of the current landscape of social assistance payment delivery worldwide. It examines the extent to which countries have adopted digital payment methods, the functionality and diversity of these mechanisms, and the ecosystem-level factors that are associated with their implementation. The findings underscore the need for context-specific, inclusive, and user-centered approaches to advance the digitalization of social assistance in a sustainable and equitable manner. The shift toward digital delivery of social assistance is advancing in most countries; however, implementation remains uneven across and within countries.31 While some countries are still piloting digital payments, others have integrated them into selected programs or even across all larger programs, though not always reaching all beneficiaries. Indeed, most countries continue to use a mix of digital and manual methods, reflecting the partial and often fragmented nature of digitalization efforts. Scaling these gains into comprehensive and inclusive systems remains a priority to ensure sustained benefits and resilience in the face of future shocks. The digitalization of social assistance payments is inherently a gradual process that requires alignment with the broader country context and enabling ecosystem. Effective implementation depends not only on the financial ecosystem but also on the availability of interoperable payment infrastructure, ID systems, reliable connectivity, regulatory frameworks, and the capacity and preferences of recipients. Countries must consider these contextual factors when designing and sequencing their digitalization strategies, recognizing that there is no one-size-fits-all model. A tailored, ecosystem-aware, and sequenced approach is essential to ensure that the transition to digital payments enhances inclusion, builds trust, and delivers sustainable improvements in program delivery. Advancing the digitalization of social assistance payments requires more than just shifting from cash to digital—it demands a deliberate effort to adapt to the country’s financial and digital landscape. Payment mechanisms should be designed not only to deliver transfers but also to promote financial inclusion and support gender empowerment—through fully functional accounts, accessible payment instruments, provider diversity, and broad geographic coverage of access points. The type of digital payment method—and the functionality it enables—matters: limited-purpose accounts or OTPs may restrict usage and reduce long-term benefits for recipients, whereas transaction accounts can promote autonomy, convenience, and integration into the formal financial system. Expanding the range and reach of service providers, including NBEIs and cooperatives, is also essential to ensure accessibility in rural and underserved areas. Expanding the availability of cash-out points, including nontraditional actors such as agents, not only strengthens the reach of digital payments but also helps reduce the time, travel, and opportunity costs that beneficiaries often face when accessing their transfers. Mobile money offers a valuable solution for delivering digital payments in areas where traditional financial infrastructure is limited, particularly in rural and underserved communities. Governments can enhance their reach by enabling a supportive regulatory environment, strengthening agent networks, and ensuring that service providers have viable business models to operate sustainably in remote areas.

Approximately 94 percent of the countries in the sample have introduced digital payment methods in at least one program.

38 | Digitalization of Social Assistance Payments: A Stocktaking

Recipient choice is a key element of user-centered digital payment mechanisms. Allowing beneficiaries to select their preferred provider and access points can enhance convenience, trust, and service quality. Despite growing interest in open choice models, providing no choice of PSP remains the most common approach among countries: 38 percent of them still assign beneficiaries to a specific provider, even when multiple PSPs are involved in disbursement. This underscores the need for greater efforts to expand real choice for recipients. As governments move toward more open and efficient payment models, it is essential to pair choice with robust financial education initiatives and targeted communication strategies. Without clear and accessible information, many beneficiaries may remain unaware of their options and continue to rely on the default option assigned to them. Digital payments are a key enabler of adaptive and shock-responsive social protection. When embedded within broader adaptive systems, digital payments can significantly improve the speed, scalability, and transparency of emergency response. However, context matters. Countries must retain the flexibility to combine digital and manual channels in areas with limited infrastructure or during crises that disrupt digital systems. Finally, realizing the full potential of digital payments in social assistance requires sustained coordination across public agencies, private service providers, and regulators. This includes aligning payment delivery with national identification systems, payment infrastructure, and social protection strategies. Strengthening institutional capacity, fostering interministerial collaboration, and embedding digital and financial education into programs will be key to building inclusive, resilient, and future-ready social assistance systems.

Conclusion

| 39

References Aadil, A., Gelb, A., Giri, A., Mukherjee, A., Navis, K., & Thapliyal, M. 2019. Digital Governance: Is Krishna a Glimpse of the Future? (CGD Working Paper No. 512). Center for Global Development. http://cgdev. org/sites/default/files/digital-governance-krishna-glimpse-future-working-paper.pdf Aker, J. C., Boumnijel, R., McClelland, A., & Tierney, N. 2016. Payment mechanisms and anti-poverty programs: Evidence from a mobile money cash transfer experiment in Niger. J-PAL. https://www. povertyactionlab.org/sites/default/files/research-paper/4277_Payments-Mechanism-and-antipoverty-programs_Aker_Nov2016.pdf Bachas, P., Gertler, P., Higgins, S., & Seira, E. 2017. How debit cards enable the poor to save more (NBER Working Paper No. 23252). National Bureau of Economic Research. https://www.nber.org/papers/ w23252 Barooah, P., Sahoo, S., Bhat, S., & George, D. 2018. Closing the gender gap: Opportunities for the women’s mobile financial services market in Bangladesh. International Finance Corporation (IFC), World Bank Group. https://www.findevgateway.org/sites/default/files/publications/files/ finalreviewedreportwomenmfsbd.pdf Baur-Yazbeck, S., Chen, G., & Roest, J. 2019. The future of G2P payments: Expanding customer choice (CGAP Focus Note). Consultative Group to Assist the Poor (CGAP). https://www.cgap.org/sites/ default/files/publications/2019_09_FocusNote_Future_G2P_Payments_2.pdf Botea, I., Coudouel, A., Heinemann, A., & Kuttner, S. 2021. Safety First : How to Leverage Social Safety Nets to Prevent Gender Based Violence. Washington, D.C.: World Bank Group. Retrieved from http:// documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/427981621586017303 Bowen, T., del Ninno, C., Andrews, C., Coll-Black, S., Gentilini, U., Johnson, K., Kawasoe, Y., Kryeziu, A., Maher, B., & Williams, A. 2020Adaptive social protection: Building resilience to shocks (International Development in Focus). Washington, DC: World Bank. http://hdl.handle.net/10986/33785 Bull, G., Grown, C., Guermazi, B., Pesme, J., & Rutkowski, M. 2021, March 5. Empowering women: Send social assistance payments directly to her. https://blogs.worldbank.org/en/voices/empoweringwomen-send-social-assistance-payments-directly-her Caixa Econômica Federal. 2026. “Poupança Social Digital CAIXA Tem.” Accessed March 1, 2025. https:// www.caixa.gov.br/voce/poupanca-e-investimentos/poupanca-social-digital-caixa-tem/Paginas/ default.aspx Chamboko, R., Cull, R., Gine, X., Heitmann, S., Reitzug, F., Van Der Westhuizen, M. 2020. The role of gender in agent banking: Evidence from the Democratic Republic of Congo. World Development, 146, 105551. Cheema I., Hunt S., Javeed S., Lone T., O’Leary, S. 2016. Benazir Income Support Programme Final Impact Evaluation Report. Clark, J., Haseeb, M., Jalal, A., Siddiqi, B., & Vyborny, K. 2022, March. Using biometrics to deliver cash payments to women: Early results from an impact evaluation in Pakistan. ID4D and G2Px Evidence Note, World Bank Group Cook, W., & Lennox, D. 2023. Engaging financial services providers in the context of G2P choice. Reading Deck. CGAP. https://www.cgap.org/research/reading-deck/engaging-financial-services-providersincontext-of-g2p-choice

40 | Digitalization of Social Assistance Payments: A Stocktaking

Field, E., R. Pande, N. Rigol, S. Schaner, and C. T. Moore. 2021. “On Her Own Account: How Strengthening Women’s Financial Control Impacts Labor Supply and Gender Norms.” American Economic Review 7: 2342–75. doi:10.1257/aer.20200705. Gelb, A., and A. Mukherjee. 2020. Digital Technology in Social Assistance Transfers for COVID-19 Relief: Lessons from Selected Cases. Center for Global Development. https://www.cgdev.org/publication/ digital-technology-social-assistance-transfers-covid-19-relief-lessons-selected-cases. Gelb, A., Mukherjee, A., Navis, K., Akter, M., & Naima, J. 2019. Primary Education Stipends in Bangladesh: Do mothers prefer digital payments over cash?. Washington, DC: Center for Global Development. GSMA. 2021. “The Mobile Economy 2021.” GSMA Intelligence. https://www.gsma.com/mobileeconomy/. Gueguen, C., and T. Debrouwer. 2023. Digital Financial Inclusion In Practice: Haiti Brief. World Food Programme, WFP. https://docs.wfp.org/api/documents/WFP-0000153133/download/?_ ga=2.178598052.1416534833.1725052133-155359975.1701789979. International Telecommunication Union and World Bank. “Digital Regulation Handbook (English).” Washington, DC: World Bank Group; Geneva: International Telecommunication Union. http:// documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/099140301092229225. Klapper, L., D. Singer, and S. Ansar. 2021. The Global Findex Database 2021. Women and Financial Inclusion. World Bank Group. https://thedocs.worldbank.org/en/ doc/45619be5de8592403df8558559627234-0050062022/original/Findex-GenderBrief.pdf Klapper, L., S. Ansar, and J. Hess. 2022. “The Role of Mobile Money Regulations: Evidence from SubSaharan Africa (Global Findex Note No. 7).” World Bank Group. https://thedocs.worldbank.org/en/ doc/6a8ad94689065f6c423a304e79f97fdb-0050062022/original/FindexNote7.pdf. Lindert, K., T. G. Karippacheril, I. Rodriguez Caillava, and K. Nishikawa Chavez. 2020. Sourcebook on the Foundations of Social Protection Delivery Systems. Washington, DC: World Bank. doi:10.1596/978-14648-1577-5. Lowe, C. L., Rigolini, J., Solbes Castro, L., & Bastagli, F. A. 2023. Pathways toward digitalization in Social Protection and Labor (SPL) service delivery (Social Protection and Jobs Discussion Paper No. 2307). World Bank Group. https://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/099100523151038686 Marin, G., and R. Palacios. 2022. The Role of Digital in the COVID-19 Social Assistance Response. Washington, DC: World Bank Group. http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/099830009302217091 Mckay, Claudia, Gcinisizwe Mdluli, Milkah Chebii, and Victor Malu. 2020. The Future of Government-toPerson (G2P) Payments: Innovating for Customer Choice in Kenya. CGAP Background Documents. https://www.findevgateway.org/case-study/2020/01/future-government-person-g2p-paymentsinnovating-customer-choice-kenya. McKee, K., Kaffenberger, M., & Zimmerman, J. M. 2015. Doing digital finance right: The case for stronger mitigation of customer risks. CGAP. https://www.cgap.org/sites/default/files/Focus-Note-DoingDigital-Finance-Right-Jun-2015.pdf Muralidharan, K., P. Niehaus, and S. Sukhtankar. 2014. Building State Capacity: Evidence from Biometric Smartcards in India. National Bureau of Economic Research. doi:10.3386/w19999. Okamura, Y., H. T. Iyengar, and C. Andrews. 2025. Wake-Up Call for Social Assistance? An Unfinished Mission to Reach the Poor and Beyond : State of Social Protection Report 2025 - The 2-Billion-Person Challenge Background Paper #3 (English). Washington, DC: World Bank Group. http://documents. worldbank.org/curated/en/099816304042510848.

References

| 41

Palaon, H., and J. Roest. 2024. Digitizing G2P Payments: Lessons from Indonesia. CGAP: https://www. cgap.org/blog/digitizing-g2p-payments-lessons-indonesia. Pickens, M., Porteous, D., & Rotman, S. 2009. Banking the poor via G2P payments (CGAP Focus Note No. 58). Consultative Group to Assist the Poor (CGAP). https://www.cgap.org/sites/default/files/ researches/documents/CGAP-Focus-Note-Banking-the-Poor-via-G2P-Payments-Dec-2009.pdf Singer, D., and L. Klapper. 2017. “The Opportunities and Challenges of Digitizing Government-to-Person Payments.” The World Bank Research Observer 32 (2): 211–226. https://doi.org/10.1093/wbro/lkx003. Smith, G. R., & Bowen, T. V. 2020. Adaptive social protection: The delivery chain and shock response. Washington, DC: World Bank Group. https://documents.worldbank.org/curated/ en/799281603376140118 Ubah, U. T.; Mukherjee, A. N.; Webster, B. S.; Cunningham, W.; and Marin Espinosa, A. G. 2023. Delivering Digital G2P Payments to Urban Informal Populations. Lessons and Future Policy Implications from COVID-19 Responses. Washington, DC: World Bank Group. http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/ en/099092023102013224 UN Women. 2024. Progress on the Sustainable Development Goals: The gender snapshot 2024. United Nations Entity for Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women (UN Women); Department of Economic and Social Affairs (DESA). https://www.unwomen.org/en/digital-library/ publications/2024/09/progress-on-the-sustainable-development-goals-the-gender-snapshot-2024 Van Biljon, C., von Fintel, D., & Pasha, A. 2018. Bargaining to Work: The Effect of Female Autonomy on Female Labour Supply (Working Paper No. 04/2018). Department of Economics, Stellenbosch University. https:// www.uni-goettingen.de/de/document/download/b7005da8d6ded15361d5c6219084144d.pdf/ WorkingPaper_vanBiljonetal.pdf World Bank. 2018. “Identification for Development (ID4D) Global Dataset.” Washington, DC: World Bank. https://id4d.worldbank.org/. World Bank. 2020. Toward the Digitalization of Cash Transfers in Ecuador: Diagnostic (Hacia la digitalización de transferencias monetarias en Ecuador. Diagnóstico). Unpublished report, in Spanish. World Bank, 2021a. Phone survey to users of MIES cash transfer programs in Ecuador. Unpublished dataset. World Bank. 2021b. Behavioral Science for Inclusive and Impactful Digital Payments. Washington, D.C.: World Bank Group. https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/213761626156031874/pdf/ Behavioral-Science-for-Inclusive-and-Impactful-Digital-Payments.pdf World Bank. 2022a. The Role of Digital in the COVID-19 Social Assistance Response. Washington, DC: World Bank. http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/099830009302217091 World Bank. 2022b. A Digital Stack for Transforming Service Delivery ID-Payments and Data Sharing (English). Washington, DC: World Bank Group. http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/ en/099755004072288910 World Bank. 2022c. Next Generation G2P Payments: Building Blocks of a Modern G2P Architecture. Washington, DC: World Bank. http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/099600110202238143 World Bank. 2023a. A Snapshot Payment Systems Worldwide - Summary Outcomes of the Sixth Global Payment Systems Survey (English). Washington, DC: World Bank Group. http://documents.worldbank. org/curated/en/099011624132054588

42 | Digitalization of Social Assistance Payments: A Stocktaking

World Bank. 2023b. The Global State of Financial Inclusion and Consumer Protection (English). Washington, DC: World Bank Group. http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/099013124180517721 World Bank. 2024. Rising to the Challenge: Success Stories and Strategies for Achieving Climate Adaptation and Resilience. Washington, DC: World Bank. World Bank. 2025a. State of Social Protection Report 2025. Washington, DC: World Bank. World Bank. 2025b. Global Findex Database 2025. Washington, DC: World Bank World Bank. 2025c. G2Px Evidence Brief : Digital G2P Payments and Women’s Economic Empowerment (English). Washington, DC: World Bank Group. http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/ en/099053025155627377 World Bank; Innovations for Poverty Action. 2024. Cash Transfer Payment Mechanisms: Do Outcomes Vary According to Payment Mechanism? Social Protection and Jobs Policy and Technical Note. Washington, D.C.: World Bank Group. https://hdl.handle.net/10986/41716 Zimmerman, J., M. May, E. Kellison, and J. Klugman. 2020. Digital Cash Transfers in Times of COVID-19 : Opportunities and Considerations for Women’s Inclusion and Empowerment (English). Washington, DC: World Bank Group. http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/378931596643390083 Zimmerman, J., & Baur-Yazbeck, S. 2016. Understanding how consumer risks in digital social payments can erode their financial inclusion potential. CGAP Brief. Washington, DC: World Bank Group. http:// documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/911891467994631836

References

| 43

Annex: Additional Data and Figures Annex A. Sample Characteristics The report largely relies on data from the ASPIRE. The report uses a dataset of 383 cash-based social assistance programs across 123 countries with detailed information on payment mechanisms in the ASPIRE administrative database. These programs encompass unconditional (188) and conditional (58) cash transfers, public works (23), social pensions (93), and scholarship programs (21). The distribution of countries and programs by regions is illustrated in figure A.1. Only active programs are considered with available data since 2015, with most data on payment indicators ranging from 2020 to 2025. The analysis in the report does not include time series analysis and reflects only the latest data available for each program, based on the most recent year of reporting. The representation of countries is as follows: 42 countries with 110 programs in Sub-Saharan Africa; 25 countries with 108 programs in Latin America and the Caribbean; 14 countries with 36 programs in the Middle East, North Africa, Afghanistan, and Pakistan; 5 countries with 27 programs in South Asia; 10 countries with 27 programs in East Asia and Pacific; and 27 countries with 75 programs in Europe and Central Asia (see table A.1).

FIGURE A.1: Sample of programs and countries used in the report Number of cash-based programs by type Number of programs and countries by region 110 108 75 Social pensions (non-contributory), 93

Unconditional cash transfers, 188

Public works, 23

Conditional cash transfers, 58

Scholarships/ education benefits, 21

42 27

SSA EAP ECA Number of Programs

LAC MENAAP SAR Number of Countries

Source: ASPIRE administrative data; own elaboration. Note: Data available for 383 cash-based social assistance programs across 123 countries.

ASPIRE collects data on a standardized set of payments variables to ensure comparability across countries. These variables comprise payment mechanisms, payment instruments, PSP, procurement, choice of PSP, type of PSP, payment points, designated payment recipient and fund disbursement details (see Annex B for a list of variables and definitions). In addition, data are collected on female recipients and availably of gender tracking by the program. For programs with multiple benefits, data are collected by each benefit and summarized at the program level. Data on various dimensions of the countries’ G2P payment ecosystem are compiled using various global data sources.32 Throughout the report, the analysis is conducted at three different levels of aggregation:33

32 In addition to ASPIRE data, this paper complements the analysis using the following databases: the International Monetary Fund’s Financial Access Survey (IMF FAS), the World Bank Global Findex, the World Bank Identification for Development (ID4D) dataset, the World Bank Financial Inclusion and Consumer Protection (FICP) Survey, World Development Indicators (WDI), World Bank Group Scorecard, and the ITU dataset. 33 These levels of aggregation are needed because the variables used in the analysis are categorical (see Annex A). Given that for most programs there are no available data on individuals receiving transfers by type of payment mechanism, the analysis at the recipient level is limited.

44 | Digitalization of Social Assistance Payments: A Stocktaking

•

Program-Level Analysis (All Programs per Country): Data were collected at this level for 383 active programs across 123 countries. The number of programs per country varies from 1 to 19, with an average of 3 programs per country. The analysis at this level allows the variance of payment methods across programs within the same country to be equally represented.

•

Flagship Program Analysis (Largest Program per Country): Analysis was also conducted focusing on the largest program per country to enhance comparability across countries with varying levels of data completeness. The largest program per country was defined either as the flagship cash transfer or the program with the highest number of recipients.34 This approach includes a sample of 101 programs across 101 countries, representing 60 percent of the total recipients in the dataset.35 It is important to note that countries often have different payment methods across programs, and therefore the largest program does not always represent the best practices even within a country.

•

Country-Level Analysis: Unlike the program-level analysis, the unit of observation under this approach is the country. The analysis consists in aggregating all program data within a country to reflect the mix of payment methods used in that country across all its programs with available data. The sample includes 123 countries to provide a higher-level perspective on each country’s social assistance landscape. Under this approach, if at least one program exhibits a specific characteristic, it is reflected in the aggregated country-level data. This method offers a more holistic view of social assistance payment methods across countries. However, it is important to note that since the dataset includes only a subset of programs in each country, the resulting country-level indicators do not represent the full picture of payment mechanisms in the country.

TABLE A.1: List of countries included in the report No.

Country

Region

Income classification

Afghanistan

MENAAP

Low Income

Number of programs 1

Albania

ECA

Upper Middle Income

Algeria

MENAAP

Upper Middle Income

Angola

SSA

Lower Middle Income

Argentina

LAC

Upper Middle Income

Armenia

ECA

Upper Middle Income

Azerbaijan

ECA

Upper Middle Income

Bangladesh

SAR

Lower Middle Income

Barbados

LAC

High Income

Belarus

ECA

Upper Middle Income

Belize

LAC

Upper Middle Income

Benin

SSA

Lower Middle Income

Bolivia

LAC

Lower Middle Income

Bosnia and Herzegovina

ECA

Upper Middle Income

Brazil

LAC

Upper Middle Income

Bulgaria

ECA

High Income

Burkina Faso

SSA

Low Income

Burundi

SSA

Low Income

Cabo Verde

SSA

Upper Middle income

Cambodia

EAP

Lower Middle Income

34 Recipients are the individuals within a household who collect the benefits, regardless of the program’s assistance unit. In programs targeted at individuals, the recipient and direct beneficiary are typically the same—except in cases involving minors or disable persons, where a legal representative may collect the benefit on their behalf. For household-targeted programs, usually one individual receives the transfer on behalf of all household members. 35 The largest programs are defined independently from the sample with available payment method data. This means that for 22 countries, data are only available for smaller programs and therefore are not included in the sample for this level of analysis.

Annex A. Sample Characteristics

| 45

No.

Country

Region

Income classification

Number of programs

Cameroon

SSA

Lower Middle Income

Central African Republic

SSA

Low Income

Chad

SSA

Low Income

Chile

LAC

High Income

China

EAP

Upper Middle Income

Colombia

LAC

Upper Middle Income

Comoros

SSA

Lower Middle Income

Congo, Democratic Republic of

SSA

Low Income

Congo, Republic of

SSA

Lower Middle Income

Costa Rica

LAC

High Income

Cote d’Ivoire

SSA

Lower Middle Income

Croatia

ECA

High Income

Czechia

ECA

High Income

Djibouti

MENAAP

Lower Middle Income

Dominica

LAC

Upper Middle Income

Dominican Republic

LAC

Upper Middle Income

Ecuador

LAC

Upper Middle Income

Egypt, Arab Republic of

MENAAP

Lower Middle Income

El Salvador

LAC

Upper Middle Income

Estonia

ECA

High Income

Lower Middle Income

Eswatini

SSA

Ethiopia*

SSA

Fiji

EAP

Upper Middle Income

Gabon

SSA

Upper Middle Income

Gambia, The

SSA

Low Income

Georgia

ECA

Upper Middle Income

Ghana

SSA

Lower Middle Income

Grenada

LAC

Upper Middle Income

Guatemala

LAC

Upper Middle Income

Guinea

SSA

Lower Middle Income

Guinea-Bissau

SSA

Low Income

Guyana

LAC

High Income

Haiti

LAC

Lower Middle Income

Honduras

LAC

Lower Middle Income

Hungary

ECA

High Income

India

SAR

Lower Middle Income

Indonesia

EAP

Upper Middle Income

Iraq

MENAAP

Upper Middle Income

Jamaica

LAC

Upper Middle Income

Jordan

MENAAP

Lower Middle Income

Kazakhstan

ECA

Upper Middle Income

Kenya

SSA

Lower Middle Income

Kosovo

ECA

Upper Middle Income

Lao People’s Democratic Republic EAP

Lower Middle Income

Latvia

High Income

ECA

Lebanon

MENAAP

Lower Middle Income

Lesotho

SSA

Lower Middle Income

Libya

MENAAP

Upper Middle Income

46 | Digitalization of Social Assistance Payments: A Stocktaking

No.

Country

Region

Income classification

Number of programs

Lithuania

ECA

High Income

Madagascar

SSA

Low Income

Malawi

SSA

Low Income

Maldives

SAR

Upper Middle Income

Mali

SSA

Low Income

Marshall Islands

EAP

Upper Middle Income

Mauritania

SSA

Lower Middle Income

Mauritius

SSA

Upper Middle Income

Mexico

LAC

Upper Middle Income

Moldova

ECA

Upper Middle Income

Mongolia

EAP

Upper Middle Income

Morocco

MENAAP

Lower Middle Income

Mozambique

SSA

Low Income

Nepal

SAR

Lower Middle Income

Niger

SSA

Low Income

Nigeria

SSA

Lower Middle Income

North Macedonia

ECA

Upper Middle Income

Pakistan

MENAAP

Lower Middle Income

Panama

LAC

High Income

Paraguay

LAC

Upper Middle Income

Peru

LAC

Upper Middle Income

Philippines

EAP

Lower Middle Income

Poland

ECA

High Income

Romania

ECA

High Income

5 3

Russian Federation

ECA

High Income

Rwanda

SSA

Low Income

Sao Tome and Principe

SSA

Lower Middle Income

Saudi Arabia

MENAAP

High Income

Senegal

SSA

Lower Middle Income

Serbia

ECA

Upper Middle Income

Seychelles

SSA

High Income

100

Slovak Republic

ECA

High Income

101

Slovenia

ECA

High Income

102

Somalia, Fed. Rep.

SSA

Low Income

103

South Africa

SSA

Upper Middle Income

104

South Sudan

SSA

Low Income

105

Sri Lanka

SAR

Lower Middle Income

106

St. Lucia

LAC

Upper Middle Income

107

Sudan

SSA

Low Income

108

Tajikistan

ECA

Lower Middle Income

109

Tanzania

SSA

Lower Middle Income

110

Timor-Leste

EAP

Lower Middle Income

111

Togo

SSA

Low Income

112

Tonga

EAP

Upper Middle Income

113

Trinidad and Tobago

LAC

High Income

114

Tunisia

MENAAP

Lower Middle Income

115

Türkiye

ECA

Upper Middle Income

116

Uganda

SSA

Low Income

Annex A. Sample Characteristics

| 47

No.

Country

Region

Income classification

Number of programs

117

Ukraine

ECA

Upper Middle Income

118

Uruguay

LAC

High Income

119

Uzbekistan

ECA

Lower Middle Income

120

West Bank and Gaza

MENAAP

Lower Middle Income

121

Yemen, Republic of

MENAAP

Low Income

122

Zambia

SSA

Lower Middle Income

123

Zimbabwe

SSA

Lower Middle Income

Source: World Bank, ASPIRE - https://www.worldbank.org/aspire. Notes: N = 383 programs in 123 countries. * Ethiopia is currently listed as Unclassified in the World Bank’s FY2026 income classifications due to insufficient or restricted national accounts data to estimate GNI per capita. Before this change, Ethiopia was classified as Low income.

48 | Digitalization of Social Assistance Payments: A Stocktaking

Annex B. Definitions TABLE B.1: Definitions of payment variables collected by ASPIRE Payment Mechanisms Benefits can be transferred to beneficiaries using several mechanisms: Fully functional or transaction account. Benefit is transferred to an account in the recipient’s name. These accounts can be either (a) mobile money accounts, mobile wallet, e-wallet, and so on OR (b) bank account, postal bank account, MFIs, or cooperatives (including SACCOs), and so on. Beneficiaries can withdraw money or make payments using an ATM/debit card or using their mobile phone (mobile money platform, QR code, OTP). Beneficiaries can also save or deposit money in the account. Limited-purpose account. Benefit is transferred to an account in the recipient’s name that can only be used for a specific purpose. These accounts can be either (a) mobile money accounts, mobile wallet, e-wallet, and so on OR (b) bank account, postal bank account, MFI account, and so on. The account has restrictions on how the beneficiary can use it or access their funds. The beneficiary cannot deposit money into the account and may not be able to make purchases using an associated payment instrument. These can include prepaid cards that are topped up by the program or accounts with limited-purpose debit cards (it does not bear the branding of a major card scheme and can only be used for limited-purpose payments). It could also refer to mobile wallets that only allow cash-out and do not allow payments or deposits/savings. Electronic/digital non-account-based payment. No transfer is made into a beneficiary’s personal account. Beneficiaries access their payment using either (a) a unique code-based payment or OTP received as a text or generated on their phone (but not linked to a mobile money wallet or account in their name) that can be keyed into access points (ATMs or POS); (b) single-use prepaid cards (not linked to the beneficiary’s name and cannot be topped up); (c) biometric authentication (beneficiaries do not have an account in their name but use their fingerprints to access their benefit at ATMs or agents). Paper voucher or paper check. Benefit is distributed to recipients using paper-based payment methods including checks or vouchers. No transfer is made into a beneficiary’s personal account. Cash. Benefit is distributed to recipients manually in cash, paid out by the line ministry/agency or a third party. No transfer is made into a beneficiary’s personal account. Payment Instruments These are the payment instruments that recipients can use to access their government payments: •

Debit card (general purpose): A payment card bearing the branding of a major card scheme (Visa, Mastercard, American Express, UnionPay, RuPay, and so on) that is of general purpose and can be used wherever the card brand is accepted.

•

Prepaid or program card (limited purpose): A payment card that does not bear the branding of a major card scheme and can only be used for limited-purpose payments, most often at establishments that have signed a direct agreement with the card issuer.

•

E-wallet or mobile banking: Includes e-money, mobile wallets, and mobile banking. Users can make transactions or cash out using SMS or mobile data.

•

Unique-code based payments or OTP: Unique-code-based payments are those where the user receives or generates a code (that is, OTP) that can be keyed into access points (that is, ATMs, POS) to access the funds

•

Biometric or cardless system: Users can cash out or make transactions using their biometrics (that is, fingerprints) at ATMs or bank branches without the need of a card.

Annex B. Definitions

| 49

Procurement of payment service providers (PSP) A program may procure PSPs as follows: •

Single PSP procured. The program procures a single PSP to deliver payments to all beneficiaries.

•

Multiple PSPs procured. The program procures or empanels two or more PSP to deliver payments to some or all beneficiaries.

•

No PSPs procured. The program provides the benefits directly without PSPs or leverages providers in the market without procuring them.

PSP choice The program may provide recipients with a choice of service providers, as follows: •

Recipient cannot choose/is assigned a provider. Recipients cannot choose between providers. They may be assigned a provider by program administrators, or the program provides benefits directly.

•

Recipient can choose among a set of providers. Recipients can choose between program providers (that have been procured or empaneled or which have been approved for disbursement) based on their preference.

•

Recipient can choose any provider in the market (Open choice). Beneficiaries can choose any PSP in the market to receive their payment or use an existing account.

Type of PSP These are the PSPs who issue the recipient accounts. These could include state banks, commercial banks, postal banks, non-bank e-money providers and MFIs or cooperative financial institutions. •

Non-bank e-money providers are PSPs, usually an MNO, who issue e-money or mobile money accounts and are not licensed banks.

•

Commercial state-owned banks are government banks that offer services (including accounts) directly to customers.

•

Commercial private banks are private-sector banks that offer services (including accounts) directly to customers.

Payment points Payment points designate places where beneficiaries can withdraw or access benefits. •

Agents or merchants: include mobile money agents and bank agents that provide cash in and cash out services on behalf of PSPs

•

Arranged payment location: may include, local government office, or community center.

Designated payment recipient This is the person to whom payments of cash or in-kind transfers are made. In the case of programs targeted to the individual, the designated payment recipient can be the direct beneficiary or another household member who receives the payment on behalf of the beneficiary (that is, in the case of people with disabilities or minors). For household or family-level benefits, it is the person designated by the household or program to receive the benefit on behalf of the household or family.

50 | Digitalization of Social Assistance Payments: A Stocktaking

How are funds disbursed from source to program recipients? Refers to the place where funds for the recurring transfers sit before being transferred to PSPs or directly to beneficiaries’ accounts. •

Agency’s own account with a commercial bank (private or state-owned) is when the responsible agency, such as a ministry of social affairs, has an account with a commercial bank, from which it makes transfers to beneficiaries or PSPs.

•

Agency’s own account with the central bank is when the responsible agency, such as a ministry of social affairs, has an account with the country’s central bank, from which it makes transfers to beneficiaries or PSPs.

•

Treasury Single Account (TSA) with a commercial bank (private or state owned) is when there is a single treasury account for the whole of government; the responsible agency sends the transfer request to the entity responsible for the TSA, that is, ministry of finance, which then makes the transfer to beneficiaries or PSPs with a commercial bank holding the TSA funds.

•

TSA with the central bank is when there is a single treasury account for the whole of government; the responsible agency sends the transfer request to the entity responsible for the TSA, that is, ministry of finance, which then makes the transfer to beneficiaries or PSPs with the central bank holding the TSA funds.

Source: ASPIRE administrative data. Own elaboration.

TABLE B.2: G2P terminology TERMS

DEFINITIONS

Financial services provider (FSP) or simply “provider”

A licensed provider of financial services, generally within a country and specifically, with respect to a G2P program, as either an account holder or a PSP

Recipient

A person who receives a G2P payment in their account

Account ownership

The percentage of respondents who report having an account (by themselves or together with someone else) at a bank or another type of financial institution (financial institution account) or report personally using a mobile money service in the past year

Made or received a digital payment

The percentage of respondents who report using mobile money, a debit or credit card, or wages or to make a payment from an account—or report using the internet to pay bills or to buy something online or in a store—in the past year. This includes respondents who report paying bills, sending or receiving remittances, receiving payments for agricultural products, receiving government transfers, receiving wages, or receiving a public sector pension directly from or into a financial institution account or through a mobile money account in the past year.

Owns a mobile phone The percentage of respondents who report owning a mobile phone. (%) Has access to the internet (%)

The percentage of respondents who report having access to the internet.

People at high risk from climate-related hazards

People at high risk from climate-related hazards are defined as those exposed to any hazard and vulnerable on any dimension, based on specific thresholds. Exposure to four climate-related hazards is considered: agricultural droughts, floods (pluvial, fluvial, and coastal), heatwaves, and tropical cyclones.

Source: The World Bank, Global Findex Database - Glossary, Cook, W., & Lennox, D. 2023.

Annex B. Definitions

| 51

Annex C. Statistics by Number of Programs TABLE C.1: Summary tables on payment methods, account types, and payment service providers (number of programs) a. Digital versus manual (Number of programs - 383) Type of Payment Mechanisms Region

Digital only

Manual only

Mix of digital and manual methods

EAP

ECA

LCR

MENAAP

SAR

SSA

Total

186

149

Source: World Bank, ASPIRE - https://www.worldbank.org/aspire. Note: Data available for 383 programs.

b. Account versus digital non-account (Number of programs - 115) Type of Digital Payments Region

Account only

Digital nonaccount only

Mix of accounts and digital non-accounts

EAP

ECA

LCR

MENAAP

SAR

SSA

Total

304

Source: World Bank, ASPIRE - https://www.worldbank.org/aspire. Note: Data available for 115 programs.

c. Type of digital account (Number of programs - 286) Type of Account Payments Region

Mobile money account

Traditional account

Traditional and mobile money accounts

Unspecified

EAP

ECA

LCR

MENAAP

SAR

SSA

Total

152

Source: World Bank, ASPIRE - https://www.worldbank.org/aspire. Note: Data available for 286 programs.

52 | Digitalization of Social Assistance Payments: A Stocktaking

d. Type of account functionality (Number of programs - 322) Region

Fully functional account

Limited-purpose account

Mix of fully functional and limited-purpose accounts

EAP

ECA

LCR

MENAAP

SAR

SSA

Total

257

Source: World Bank, ASPIRE - https://www.worldbank.org/aspire. Note: Data available for 286 programs.

e. Type of PSPs for account-based payments (Number of programs - 266)

Region

State-owned bank

Private bank

Postal bank

Non-bank e-money provider

MFIs or cooperatives

EAP

ECA

LCR

21 1

MENAAP

SAR

SSA

Total

145

203

Source: World Bank, ASPIRE - https://www.worldbank.org/aspire. Note: A single program may rely on multiple types of payment service providers (PSPs), so the number of programs across PSP categories does not sum to the total number of programs. Information on PSP type is available for 266 programs that use account-based payments.

f. Type of procurement of PSP (Number of programs - 300) Region

Multiple PSP procured

Single PSP procured

No PSP procured

EAP

ECA

LCR

MENAAP

Mix Approach

SAR

SSA

Total

152

Source: World Bank, ASPIRE - https://www.worldbank.org/aspire. Note: Data available for 300 programs. PSPs: Payment service providers.

Annex C. Statistics by Number of Programs

| 53

g. Type of choice of PSPs offered by social assistance programs (Number of programs - 306) Type of Choice of PSPs Offered by Social Assistance Programs Region

No choice

Limited choice

Open choice

EAP

ECA

Mix Approach

LCR

MENAAP

SAR

SSA

Total

119

115

Source: World Bank, ASPIRE - https://www.worldbank.org/aspire. Note: Data available for 306 programs. PSPs: Payment service providers.

FIGURE C.2: Digital methods observed in the flagship program of each country in the sample

Number of flagship programs 60 48

50 40

30 20

10 0 Digital only

Mix of digital and manual methods

Manual only

Source: World Bank, ASPIRE - https://www.worldbank.org/aspire. Note: The analysis is based on payment data from 101 programs in 101 countries, where information is available for each country’s flagship program. The data covers the period from 2020 to 2025. “Mix of digital and manual methods” in the country-level analysis refers to countries where both manual and digital payments are used, either within individual programs or across multiple programs.

54 | Digitalization of Social Assistance Payments: A Stocktaking

FIGURE C.3: Type of account-based payment by programs 2% (7)

Percentage of programs

7% (26) 2% (6)

5% (18)

Manual only, 13% (48)

3% (13) 2% (8)

Digital account only, 49% (186) Mix of digital and manual methods, 39% (149)

32% (122)

35% (135)

Mix of digital non-account and manual methods

Digital non-account only

Mix of fully functional and limited-purpose accounts

Fully functional account

Limited-purpose account

Guinea - Emergency Response and NAFA Program Support

Manual only

FIGURE C.4: Percentage of female recipients for the largest programs (34 programs/countries) 26%

Gabon - FA

37%

Mongolia - CMP

49%

Maldives - BP

50%

Cote d'Ivoire - National Productive Social Safety Net Program

50%

Belize - BOOST

53%

Azerbaijan - TSA

53%

Ghana - LEAP

55%

Mauritius - BRP

57%

India - MGNREGA

64%

Niger - ASP 2 " Wadata Talaka"

100%

South Sudan - GESS

100%

Malawi - CSEPWP

50%

Uruguay - Non-contributory pensions for old age & disability

51%

Ethiopia - PSNP

51%

To go - NOVISSI

65%

Guinea-Bissau - Nutrition & Livelihoods Support to Vulnerable Population

71%

Georgia - Old Age Pension

Mix of digital and manual methods

Digital account only

Tanzania - PSSN

97%

South Africa - Child Support Grant

97%

Sao Tome and Principe - Vulnerable Families Program

97%

Somalia - BAXNAANO 0

Panama - 120 at 65

60%

Zimbabwe - Harmonised social cash transfer (HSCT)

63%

Angola - Kwenda

63%

Haiti - Expansion of safety nets for vulnerable populations

65%

Uganda - SAGE

65%

Kazakhstan - Base Pension (Pillar Zero)

66%

Egypt, Arab Republic of - Takaful and Karama

88%

Marshall Islands - ECD cash transfers

87%

Lao PDR - Helping Hand

91%

Indonesia - PKH

95%

Peru - Juntos 0

20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

100% 10

20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Percentage of female recipients (%)

Digital only

75%

Ecuador - Human Development Bonus

100% 10

56%

Mix of digital and manual methods

Manual only

Source: World Bank, ASPIRE - https://www.worldbank.org/aspire. Note: Sex-disaggregated data available for 34 of the largest social assistance programs across 101 countries. The largest program per country was defined either as the flagship cash transfer or the program with the highest number of recipients, based on available data. Annex C. Statistics by Number of Programs

Annex D. Additional Figures FIGURE D.1: Percentage of countries by type of PSPs

Percentage of countries 100 80

13%

14%

90 36%

30%

14% 58%

70 60

25%

2% 8%

88%

83%

80%

71%

30 20

17%

20%

60% 42%

36%

10 0 SSA

EAP

ECA

LAC

MENA

SAR

Total

State-owned and Private commercial banks

Non-bank e-money provider Mix Microfinance institution or Cooperative financial institutions Source: World Bank, ASPIRE - https://www.worldbank.org/aspire. Note: Data available for 99 of 123 countries, covering 266 of 383 programs. Analysis conducted at the country level. PSPs: Payment service providers.

FIGURE D.2: Percentage of countries with and without simplified CDD policy requirements, by

Simplified CDD

account functionality

Yes (n=56)

77%

No (n=6)

14%

50% 0

33% 30

9% 17%

100

Percentage of countries Fully functional account

Mix of fully functional & limited-purpose accounts

Sources: World Bank, ASPIRE - https://www.worldbank.org/aspire, and FICP Survey. Note: Data available for 62 of 123 countries. CDD: Customer due diligence

56 | Digitalization of Social Assistance Payments: A Stocktaking

Limited-purpose account

FIGURE D.3: Percentage of countries with and without regulatory frameworks in place for NBEI, by

Non-Bank E-Money Issuers - NBEI

account functionality

77%

Yes (n=48)

No (n=19)

14%

58% 0

21% 40

21% 80

100

Percentage of countries Fully functional account

Mix of fully functional & limited-purpose accounts

Limited-purpose account

Sources: World Bank, ASPIRE - https://www.worldbank.org/aspire, FICP Survey. Note: Data available for 67 of 123 countries. NBEI:Non-bank e-money issuers.

Annex D. Additional Figures