Financial Services
Demand Side Survey
Republic of Fiji
Fiji Bureau of Statistics
B|Financial
Services Demand Side Survey • Republic of Fiji
Financial Services
Demand Side Survey
Republic of Fiji
Fiji Bureau of Statistics
USP Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data
Fiji financial services demand side survey / Reserve Bank of Fiji. -- Suva, Fiji : Reserve Bank of Fiji, 2015.
70 p. ; 30 cm.
ISBN 978-982-9172-01-3
1. Financial services industry--Fiji.
2. Banks and banking--Fiji. 3. Finance--Social aspects--Fiji.
I. Reserve Bank of Fiji. HG190.F5F55 2015
332.1099611--dc23
ii | F i n a n c i a l
Services Demand Side Survey • Republic of Fiji
Preface
In 2013 members of the Pacific Islands Regional Initiative (PIRI), formerly known as the Pacific Islands Working Group
(PIWG), a grouping under the Alliance for Financial Inclusion (AFI), jointly undertook a review of available data and
measurement exercises with which they could design and evaluate their national financial inclusion strategies and their
Maya Declaration commitments. As part of this exercise, PIRI members agreed to adopt not only the core set of AFI financial
inclusion indicators, but to expand that set too. The members committed to carrying out demand side surveys to capture
those indicators. In early 2015, demand side surveys were held in Fiji, Samoa and Solomon Islands. These surveys were
jointly supported by AFI and the Pacific Financial Inclusion Programme (PFIP).
Alliance for Financial Inclusion
The Alliance for Financial Inclusion (AFI) is the world’s leading organization on financial inclusion policy and regulation. A
member-owned network, AFI promotes and develops evidence-based policy solutions that help to improve the lives of the
poor. Together, AFI members from more than 120 financial inclusion policymaking institutions are working to unlock the
potential of the world’s 2 billion unbanked through the power of financial inclusion.
Pacific Financial Inclusion Programme
PFIP is a Pacific-wide programme helping low-income households gain access to quality and affordable financial services
and financial education. It is jointly managed by the UN Capital Development Fund (UNCDF) and the United Nations
Development Programme (UNDP) and receives funding from the Australian Government, the European Union and the New
Zealand Government. PFIP funding for the Fiji Demand Side Survey was from the DFAT Fiji bi-lateral programme.
PFIP aims to add one million Pacific Islanders to the formal financial sector by 2019 by spearheading policy and regulatory
initiatives, facilitating access to appropriate financial services and delivery channels and by strengthening financial
competencies and consumer empowerment.
Acknowledgements
This survey would not have been possible without the dedicated efforts of staff at the Reserve Bank of Fiji and the Fiji
Bureau of Statistics, including Duri Buadromo, Sameer Chand, Akata Taito, Epeli Waqavonovono, Tevita Vakalalabure, Emily
Dutt, Rajnesh Narayan, and of course, the enumeration team. Sincere thanks also go to the Statistics Working Group (SWG)
at the RBF and also to the staff at PFIP for coordination and guidance throughout the project, including Jeff Liew, Praneel
Pritesh, Shadiyana Begum and Elizabeth Larson. Warm thanks are also extended to Bankable Frontier Associates (BFA) Brian
Loeb, Laura Cojocaru, and Sushmita Meka for their tireless efforts in designing the survey, working with the enumerators
and drafting the final report.
This report is dedicated to the memory of Reuben James Summerlin.
F i n a n c i a l S e r v i c e s D e m a n d S i d e S u r v e y • R e p u b l i c o f F i j I | iii
Foreword
In 2009, key stakeholders through a consultation workshop, developed Fiji’s first national strategy for Financial Inclusion
(2010 – 2014). At that time there was a lack of national baseline data and information available to map the outreach and
coverage of existing financial service provisions necessary to develop benchmarks and targets for financial inclusion. Despite
the setback, the stakeholders formulated and agreed upon a vision, objectives and some key performance targets, including
the establishment of a National Financial Inclusion Taskforce (NFIT). The NFIT and the Reserve Bank of Fiji, in 2010, set up
fundamental monitoring mechanisms to track and monitor these targets, largely through the supply side information collated
by the RBF.
Fiji’s financial inclusion data initiative was given a boost in 2012 when the Reserve Bank and other central banks in the region
formed a regional working group and agreed to adapt and adopt the Alliance for Financial Inclusion’s (AFI) common set of
indicators. These indicators have been aligned to the G20 basic set of financial inclusion indicators and provide a harmonised
benchmark for measuring and monitoring the change in financial inclusion in a country and tracking its progress in terms of
access, usage and quality. By June 2014, the Bank began publishing these key financial inclusion indicators in the Reserve Bank
of Fiji Quarterly Review.
The supply side data collated by the Reserve Bank and other central banks provide a good measure of data relating to access
and to some extent, the usage of financial services and products. However, it has its limitations and the Pacific regional central
banks agreed that a demand side survey would be able to provide greater insights on usage, in particular, the barriers to
accessing and usage of the formal financial system.
In 2014 the Fiji Bureau of Statistics completed the field work for the national demand side survey. This national diagnostic
exercise has helped us better understand:
•
the needs of the adult population in respect to access and usage of financial services in rural/urban areas and across
different levels of income, ethnicity, gender and different age groups;
•
the formal usage of certain basic financial services such as savings, credit, investment, pension funds and the
financial channels;
•
the main profiles of users and non-users of formal financial services; and
•
the main barriers that prevent adults from accessing and using financial products and services
The rich data that has been collected, we hope, will be used widely by decision makers to promote and support economic
growth and poverty alleviation in Fiji.
In the latter part of 2015, the Reserve Bank and the Pacific Financial Inclusion Programme is scheduled to host a national
consultation workshop and will invite all our stakeholders to discuss the findings of the demand side survey report.
This Report provides important data that will be used as part of the baseline data that the NFIT and stakeholders will use to
formulate a new Financial Inclusion Strategic Plan for Fiji (2016 -2020).
Furthermore, we hope that academia will also use this report to conduct further research studies to document related
progress and the impact of financial inclusion in Fiji. In this way, we hope to identify our own home grown solutions that can
maximise opportunities to promote equitable growth and economic stability in Fiji.
I would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge the good work of the United Nations Capital Development Fund, Pacific
Financial Inclusion Program, and Alliance for Financial Inclusion, the Government of Fiji particularly, the Fiji Bureau of Statistics,
NFIT and the Statistics Working Group who all have contributed to the Survey and the Report
Governor Barry Whiteside
Reserve Bank of Fiji
iv | F i n a n c i a l
Services Demand Side Survey • Republic of Fiji
Contents
Preface....................................................................................................................................................................................... iii
Foreword................................................................................................................................................................................... iv
Acronyms and abbreviations..................................................................................................................................................... vi
Executive summary.................................................................................................................................................................... 1
Financial access and usage by inclusion strand in Fiji.................................................................................................................2
Spotlight on bank account usage............................................................................................................................................. 15
Spotlight on savings.................................................................................................................................................................. 21
Spotlight on credit.................................................................................................................................................................... 25
Spotlight on mobile money...................................................................................................................................................... 27
Spotlight on remittances.......................................................................................................................................................... 28
Spotlight on insurance.............................................................................................................................................................. 31
Conclusion................................................................................................................................................................................ 32
Annex A: Financial inclusion indicators.................................................................................................................................... 33
Annex B: Analysis of inclusion using the Progress out of Poverty Index (PPI)..........................................................................36
Annex C: Detailed results......................................................................................................................................................... 39
Annex D: Methodology............................................................................................................................................................ 51
Unless otherwise noted, exchange rate used is USD 1.00 to FJD 2.04, as of 9 March 2015 via http://www.oanda.com/.
Financial Services Demand Side Survey • Republic of FijI |v
Acronyms and abbreviations
AFI
Alliance for Financial Inclusion
DSS
Financial Services Demand Side Survey
FAS
IMF Financial Access Survey
FBOS
Fiji Bureau of Statistics
FIDWG
Financial Inclusion Data Working Group
FJD
Fiji Dollar
FNPF
Fiji National Provident Fund
Global Findex
World Bank Global Financial Inclusion Indicators
GPFI
Global Partnership for Financial Inclusion
PFIP
Pacific Financial Inclusion Programme
PIRI
Pacific Islands Regional Initiative
RBF
Reserve Bank of Fiji
UNCDF
United Nations Capital Development Fund
vi | F i n a n c i a l
Services Demand Side Survey • Republic of Fiji
Executive summary
The Fiji Financial Inclusion Demand Side Survey (DSS) is a project of the Reserve Bank of Fiji (RBF) and the Fiji Bureau of
Statistics (FBOS). The main purpose of the DSS is to help the government and other stakeholders gain a better understanding
of the needs of Fijians in regard to financial services and products. The survey establishes baseline data that will provide
useful information on access, usage and quality of the financial services and products currently available to all Fijians from the
viewpoint of the customer.
The results of the survey will be used to develop evidence-based policy solutions to address the gaps, as well as to monitor
the growth of financial inclusion. One of the key objectives of this survey will be determining and agreeing on a new set of
Financial Inclusion Targets.1 These will be incorporated into the new Financial Inclusion Strategy for Fiji and will replace the
current framework that expired at the end of 2014. The key findings of the survey are summarized below.
Formal inclusion in Fiji is high relative to other Pacific Island countries
According to the DSS results, 60% of Fijians have bank accounts, and another 4% use other formal financial services, including
microfinance, credit unions, and insurance.2 On the other hand, 9% of respondents exclusively used informal financial services
to save or borrow,3 while another one-third (27%) of respondents can be classified as financially excluded.
As expected, formal inclusion is higher among urban Fijians, men, and those with higher incomes. Rural respondents, in
particular, face high barriers to financial inclusion such as long distances to the nearest access points and long wait times to
open an account.
Compared with other Pacific Island countries in which comparable DSS surveys have been completed, namely Samoa (38.9%)
and Solomon Islands (26.2%), formal inclusion in Fiji is much higher. Similarly, Fiji’s level of inclusion exceeds that of lowermiddle income countries included in the Global Financial Inclusion Index, in which only an estimated 41.8% of the population
is banked despite nearly half (47%) of Fiji’s population being located in rural areas.4,5 Compared with upper-middle income
countries (70.4%), which Fiji was reclassified as in 2013, progress lags slightly behind.
This report is not intended to explore the causes leading to greater inclusion—rather, it provides a benchmark on access and
usage of formal and informal financial access in Fiji.
Mobile money usage is low
Despite high profile product launches and pushes from donors and other development partners, mobile money has yet to
reach significant scale in Fiji. According to the DSS, even among respondents who both have a SIM card and have heard of
mobile money, less than 11% have a mobile money account. This is an increase of just 3 percentage points from a 2012
survey.6 Account penetration may not correspond exactly with usage: there are likely many dormant accounts, and people
could use the accounts of family members and friends.
The challenge in Fiji, as elsewhere, is to move beyond awareness (80% of mobile phone users know about mobile money).
The low use of mobile money shown in the DSS also raises questions about the relevance of products currently on the market
for Fijian households.
Similarly, rates of mobile and internet banking are low. Among banked clients, mobile and internet banking rates stand at 9.4%
and 8.10%, respectively. Further research can explore the reasons of usage (and non-usage) of these and other bank products.
The post office controls the domestic remittance market
The DSS findings suggest a need for further research into preferences for the post office over other money transfer options
as well as research on the role of the post office specifically as a payment provider. Most Fijians see it as their best option for
domestic remittances, rather than mobile money or bank transfers. Stakeholders in Fiji should investigate what is attractive
about the post office’s value proposition: convenience, price, speed, etc.
This DSS identifies further areas for research
The DSS report also identifies a number of areas for further research that could be undertaken in Fiji, to deepen the
understanding of various segments of the market, and their particular needs. These include, the financial needs and barriers
to access for women, as well as the financial needs of self-employed entrepreneurs. The study also notes that the use of credit
is relatively low overall in Fiji, suggesting that there may be an untapped market for credit, and that existing non-bank formal
credit providers are currently not meeting the credit needs of Fijian adults who rely informal means to access loans. Other
areas for further investigation include gaining an understanding of the relevance of various financial products on the market
in Fiji, and an examination of the various opportunities to improve available information on financial products and services.
1
2
3
4
5
6
Reserve Bank of Fiji. “National Demand Side Survey to Assess the Access, Usage and Quality of Financial Services and Products in Fiji.” Press Release, October 2014. < http://www.pfip.
org/media-centre/in-news/2014-1/national-demand-side-survey-to-assess-access-usage-quality-of-financial-services-products-in-fiji.html>
Other formal financial services include use of credit unions, microfinance institutions, the Fiji National Provident Fund (FNPF) or other superannuation funds, investments (stocks,
bonds, unit trusts, or others), insurance, or finance companies.
Informal services include savings clubs, moneylenders, credit from shops, or hire purchases.
World Bank. Global Financial Inclusion Indicators: Regional Dashboard (Income Group Comparisons). 2014. (accessed 7 April, 2015).
World Bank. World Development Indicators: Rural population. 2013. <http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.RUR.TOTL.ZS>
Subramanian, Ramanathan. “Mobile Money Attitudes and Perception Omnibus Survey.” February, 2012. <http://www.pfip.org/resources/uploads/attachments/documents/Omnibus_
Survey_Findings.pdf>
Financial Services Demand Side Survey • Republic of FijI |1
Financial access and usage by inclusion strand in Fiji
Data collection for the Fiji Financial Inclusion demand side survey (DSS) took place between October and
December, 2014, by the FBOS. FBOS designed the sample to be nationally representative, using 2-stage,
systematic random sampling. Enumerators used a Kish grid to randomly select one adult respondent
(age 15 and above) from each sampled household. Thus, all findings apply to Fijian adults (15+) unless
otherwise stated. Further details on the methodology can be found in Annex C.
Financial access and usage by inclusion strand in Fiji
Financial inclusion strands in Fiji
Fijians fall into four “financial inclusion” strands, defined below. These categories are based on
Data collection for the Fiji Financial Inclusion demand side survey (DSS) took place between October and December,
7
respondents’
usage
of various
financial
over representative,
the 12 months
prior
to their
being
interviewed.
2014, by the FBOS.
FBOS
designed the
sample services
to be nationally
using
2-stage,
systematic
random
sampling.
Enumerators used a Kish grid to randomly select one adult respondent (age 15 and above) from each sampled household.
Financial
inclusion
strand
Thus, all findings
apply
to Fijian adults (15+) unless otherwise stated. Further details on the methodology can be found in
Annex C.
Banked
The respondent currently has a formal bank account, whether they are using it or
not.
Financial
inclusion
Fiji the respondent used services of a credit union,
Other formal
Over thestrands
past 12 in
months,
Fijians fall into fourmicrofinance
“financial inclusion”
strands, defined
categories
are basedFund
on respondents’
institution
(MFI), below.
the FijiThese
National
Provident
(FNPF) orusage
otherof
various financial services over the 12 months prior to their being interviewed.7
superannuation fund, investments (stocks, bonds, unit trust, or others),
or a finance company.
Financial inclusioninsurance,
strand
Informal
Over
past 12currently
months,
respondent
usedwhether
savings
clubs,
moneylenders,
Bankedonly
Thethe
respondent
hasthe
a formal
bank account,
they
are using
it or not.
credit from a shop, or a hire purchase
Excluded
Over
the
months,
respondent
has not
of microfinance
the servicesinstitution
Other formal
Over
thepast
past 12
12 months,
thethe
respondent
used services
of used
a creditany
union,
(MFI), the Fiji
Provident
(FNPF) or other
superannuation
fund, investments
mentioned
forNational
the other
threeFund
categories,
but may
have borrowed
from or (stocks,
lent to
bonds, unit trust, or others), insurance, or a finance company.
friends and family, saved money in the house, pawned goods, borrowed from an
Informal only
Over the past
employer,
etc.12 months, the respondent used savings clubs, moneylenders, credit from a shop, or a
hire purchase
Excluded
Over the past 12 months, the respondent has not used any of the services mentioned for the other
three categories, but may have borrowed from or lent to friends and family, saved money in the
As Figure 1 below shows,
60% of Fiji DSS respondents currently have a bank account, while another 4%
house, pawned goods, borrowed from an employer, etc.
use other formal services such as credit unions, microfinance, insurance, or finance companies.
As Figure 1 below shows, 60% of Fiji DSS respondents currently have a bank account, while another 4% use other formal
However,
27% of respondents appear to be excluded from both formal and informal financial services.
services such as credit unions, microfinance, insurance, or finance companies. However, 27% of respondents appear to be
Further
study
this
segment
can shed
light
on the
barriers
services
Fiji.on the barriers to
excluded
fromof
both
formal
and informal
financial
services.
Further
studyto
offinancial
this segment
can shedinlight
financial services in Fiji.
Figure 1: Fiji financial inclusion strand 2015
Figure 1: Fiji financial inclusion strand 2015
60%
Banked
4%
Other formal
9%
Informal only
27%
Excluded
Table 1: Inclusion categories
Table 1: Inclusion categories
Financial inclusion category
%
95% confidence interval
Banked (n=772)
60.1%
[55.4% — 64.6%]
The access strand methodology is borrowed from the FinScope surveys, developed by FinMark Trust, which are implemented
formal
4.1% Africa. The access
[3.0%strand,
— 5.6%]
on aOther
regular
basis(n=54)
in a number of countries throughout
which segments adults by the types of
financial services used, allows policymakers and providers to visualize changes in the use of financial services over time.
Informal only (n=103)
8.6%
[6.1% — 12.1%]
7
Excluded (n=358)
27.2%
[23.8% — 30.8%]
n=1,287
Because few survey respondents fell into the “other formal” or “informal only” strands, it is difficult to draw conclusions
about these groups with statistical confidence. Thus, the following sections focus on describing the “banked” and “excluded”
strands, followed by a deep dive into specific types of financial instruments or services: savings, credit, remittances, mobile
money and insurance. We also examine the use of bank services in detail. Further, the full set of global demand-side
7
The access strand methodology is borrowed from the FinScope surveys, developed by FinMark Trust, which are implemented on a regular basis in a number of countries throughout
Africa. The access strand, which segments adults by the types of financial services used, allows policymakers and providers to visualize changes in the use of financial services over time.
2|Financial
Services Demand Side Survey • Republic of Fiji
indicators collected in the Fiji DSS are located in Annex A, including the PIRI Financial Inclusion indicators, the World Bank
Global Financial Inclusion Indicators (Global Findex), and the Global Partnership for Financial Inclusion (GPFI) Financial
Inclusion Indicators.
Fiji’s level of financial inclusion in context
The level of formal financial inclusion is high relative to other countries in the same income cohort and in line with supplyside indicators of formal financial penetration in Fiji.
The Pacific Island countries are not yet included in the Global Findex. As Fiji is the first country to complete the DSS, data
from larger island nations provide sufficient benchmarking, as do comparisons with other upper-middle income countries
included in the Global Findex.8 In this section we compare results from the current Fiji DSS with results from other data
collection efforts, including those from the Global Findex. Figure 2 below shows that the proportion of formal financial inclusion is significantly lower in the Philippines and Indonesia,
as measured by the Global Findex, than in the Fiji DSS. In addition, compared with lower-middle income countries
participating in the Global Findex, Fiji’s level of formal financial inclusion is high. However, Fiji’s level of inclusion falls slightly
behind that of other upper-middle income countries included in the Global Findex, particularly of inclusion of rural and
female adults.
Fiji Demand Side Survey
Page 11
Figure 2: Financial inclusion in Fiji compared with the Philippines, Indonesia and Lower- and Middle-Income
Countries
46%
Account at a financial institution, rural (% age 15+)
69%
68%
Account at a financial institution, male (% age 15+)
74%
52%
Account at a financial institution, female (% age 15+)
67%
60%
Account at a financial institution (% age 15+)
70%
0%
Fiji
Lower-middle income countries
10%
20%
30%
40%
Upper-middle income countries
50%
60%
Indonesia
70%
80%
Philippines
Data
from
GlobalFindex
Findex
(Global
Financial
Inclusion
Database),
last updated:
Data
fromdatabase:
database: Global
(Global
Financial
Inclusion
Database),
last updated:
04/2015 04/2015
Data
collected
by the
International
Monetary
Fund’sFund’s
Financial
Access Access
Survey (FAS)
indicates
that Fiji’s that
higher
level of
Data
collected
by the
International
Monetary
Financial
Survey
(FAS) indicates
Fiji’s
inclusion
is
not
surprising.
higher level of inclusion is not surprising.
Figure 3 below shows that Fiji has a higher proportion of deposit accounts for its population than does either the Philippines
Figure 3 below shows that Fiji has a higher proportion of deposit accounts for its population than does
or Indonesia.
either the Philippines or Indonesia.
Figure 3: Deposit accounts with commercial banks per 1000 adults
1750
1400
1050
1,018
1,076
1,052
1,127
700
8
Upper-middle income countries are defined as those in which gross national income per capita was between USD $4,125-$12,745 in 2014 as defined by the World Bank Atlas Method.
In comparison, lower-middle income countries had a GNI per capita between USD $1,046-$4,125 in 2014. Fiji was reclassified as an upper-middle income country in 2013. See also:
World Bank. Country and Lending Groups Data, 2014. http://data.worldbank.org/about/country-and-lending-groups#Upper_middle_income.
350
0
2010
2011
2012
2013
Indonesia
Philippines
Solomon Islands
Financial Services Demand Side Survey • Republic of FijI |3
Fiji
Papua New Guinea
Samoa
Financial Access Survey, available at http://fas.imf.org/
0%
Fiji
Lower-middle income countries
10%
20%
30%
40%
Upper-middle income countries
50%
60%
Indonesia
70%
80%
Philippines
Data from database: Global Findex (Global Financial Inclusion Database), last updated: 04/2015
Data collected by the International Monetary Fund’s Financial Access Survey (FAS) indicates that Fiji’s
higher level of inclusion is not surprising.
Figure 3 below shows that Fiji has a higher proportion of deposit accounts for its population than does
either the Philippines or Indonesia.
Figure
3: Deposit
accounts
with commercial
banks per
1000per
adults
Figure
3: Deposit
accounts
with commercial
banks
1000 adults
1750
1400
1,018
1050
1,076
1,127
1,052
700
350
0
2010
2011
2012
Indonesia
Fiji
2013
Philippines
Papua New Guinea
Solomon Islands
Samoa
Financial
available
http://fas.imf.org/
FinancialAccess
Access Survey,
Survey, available
atat
http://fas.imf.org/
Figure
4 and
Figure
5 below
showshow
that that
penetration
of bank
and ATMs
Fiji is high
other countries
in
Figure
4 and
Figure
5 below
penetration
ofbranches
bank branches
andinATMs
in Fijirelative
is hightorelative
to
9
Fiji Demand Side Survey
9
theother
region,
with
the
exception
of
Samoa.
countries in the region, with the exception of Samoa.
Page 12
Figure
4: Number
of commercial
bank branches
per 100,000
Figure
4: Number
of commercial
bank branches
per 100,000
adults adul ts
9
25
The ratio for Samoa is higher due to its small population (about 190,000 in 2013)
20
15
10
5
0
2010
2011
2012
2013
Indonesia
Philippines
Solomon Islands
Fiji
Papua New Guinea
Samoa
Financial Access Survey, available at http://fas.imf.org/
Financial Access Survey, available at http://fas.imf.org/
Figure 5: Number of ATMs per 100,000 adults
50
40
30
33
36
36
42
20
9
10
The ratio for Samoa is higher due to its small population (about 190,000 in 2013)
0
2010
4|Financial
2011
2012
2013
S e r v iIndonesia
c e s D e m a n d S i d e SPhilippines
u r v e y • R e p u b l i c Solomon
o f F i j i Islands
Fiji
Papua New Guinea
Samoa
5
0
2010
2011
2012
2013
Indonesia
Philippines
Solomon Islands
Fiji
Papua New Guinea
Samoa
Financial Access Survey, available at http://fas.imf.org/
Figure 5: Number of ATMs per 100,000 adults
Figure 5: Number of ATMs per 100,000 adults
50
40
30
33
42
36
36
20
10
0
2010
2011
2012
2013
Indonesia
Philippines
Solomon Islands
Fiji
Papua New Guinea
Samoa
Financial
availableatathttp://fas.imf.org/
http://fas.imf.org/
FinancialAccess
AccessSurvey,
Survey, available
In In
thethe
FijiFiji
Financial
Inclusion
DSS, DSS,
the Global
FindexFindex
indicators
were captured
to providetoaprovide
benchmark
with global financial
Financial
Inclusion
the Global
indicators
were captured
a benchmark
inclusion metrics captured around the world. In addition, the PIRI demand side indicators were captured, along with the
with global financial inclusion metrics captured around the world. In addition, the PIRI demand side
GPFI Financial Inclusion Indicators. While all indicators are listed in detail in Annex A, some highlights are presented in Table
indicators
were captured,
alongownership
with the statistics
GPFI Financial
Inclusion
Indicators. While all indicators are
2 below (in addition
to the account
in Figure
2).
listed in detail in Annex A, some highlights are presented in Table 2 below (in addition to the account
Fiji’s level of formal financial inclusion is closely aligned with those of other upper-middle income countries across many of
ownership statistics in Figure 2).
the Global Findex indicators and exceeds that of lower-middle income countries. While use of credit is lower in Fiji than in
other countries, the percentage of Fijians stating that they had saved in the previous 12 months is higher than the average
reported rates in lower-middle and upper-middle income countries, both in terms of saving in any instrument (71.2%) as
well as saving in formal financial institutions (37.9%).
Table 2: Benchmarking the Fiji Financial Inclusion Indicators with results from comparable Global Findex
countries
Lower-middle income
countries (2014)
Fiji
(2014)
Upper-middle income
countries (2014)
Account with a formal financial institution
41.8%
60.2%
70.4%
Loan in the past year (from any source)
47.4%
32%
37.7%
Loan from a financial institution in the past year
7.5%
6.9%
10.4%
Saved any money in the past year (self-reported)
45.6%
71.2%
62.7%
Saved at a financial institution in the past year
(bank, credit union, or MFI)
14.8%
37.9%
32.2%
Data from database: Global Findex (Global Financial Inclusion Database), last updated: 04/2015
Who are the banked and the excluded?
Eastern and Western Divisions home to a higher proportion of excluded
An analysis of financial inclusion strand by geographic division (Figure 6) suggests that northern and eastern divisions have
the highest proportions of the population using only informal financial services (25% and 16%, respectively). And while 41%
of those living in eastern division are banked, the same proportion are excluded entirely from financial services—higher
than the proportion in any other division. One third (33%) of western division’s population is also excluded from financial
Financial Services Demand Side Survey • Republic of FijI |5
services. These findings should be examined along with supply side data on bank and ATM outreach to better understand
whether high rates of exclusion and use of informal services could be attributed to physical access or whether other demand
or supply side factors might also be at work. It should be noted that northern division is the poorest region with a poverty
rate of close to 53%, and western division is the biggest contributor in terms of the number of poor (with 44% of the total
Fiji Demand Side Survey
poor in Fiji residing in western division).10 Detailed results are located in Annex B.11
Page 14
Figure 6: Financial inclusion strand by division12
Also
in
line
with
expectations,
access
is
much higher
in urban
are
Also
in
line
expectations,
bank
account
access
is
Also in line with expectations, bank account access is much higher
areas
than in rural bank
areasaccount
(Figure 7).
Among
Also in
in urban
line with
with
expectations,
bank
account
access
is much
much higher
higher in
in urban
urban are
are
(Figure
7).
Among
urban
respondents,
74%
currently
have
aa bank
account,
com
urban respondents, 74% currently have a bank account, compared
with
46%
of
rural
respondents.
The
discussion
on
specific
(Figure
7).
Among
urban
respondents,
74%
currently
have
bank
account,
com
(Figure 7). Among urban respondents,
currently
a bank account, com
Fiji 74%
Demand
Sidehave
Survey
respondents.
discussion
on
financial
services
financial services below shows that this is also the case for insurance
and FijiThe
National
Provident
Fund (FNPF)
usage
as well.below
respondents.
The
discussion
on specific
specific
financial
services
below shows
shows that
that thi
thi
respondents. The discussion on specific financial services
below
Page
15 shows that thi
insurance
and Fiji
(FNPF)areas
usage as
well. in rural are
Also in line with expectations, bank account
access
isNational
muchProvident
higher Fund
in urban
than
insurance
insurance and
and Fiji
Fiji National
National Provident
Provident Fund
Fund (FNPF)
(FNPF) usage
usage as
as well.
well.
Figure (Figure
7: Urban/rural
split
in
bank
account
ownership
7). Among urban respondents, 74% currently have a bank account, compared with 46% of
financial services below shows that this is also the case fo
74%
80% respondents. The discussion on specific
60% Fiji National Provident Fund (FNPF) usage as well.
insurance and
60%
46%
40%
40%
Also in line with expectations,
28% bank account access is much higher in urban areas than in rural areas
a bank account,
compared with 46% of rural
(Figure 7). Among urban respondents, 74% currently have
16%
14%
12%
20%
10% services below shows that
respondents. The discussion on specific financial
this is also the case for
insurance
and
Fiji
National
Provident
Fund
(FNPF)
usage
as
well.
0%
Figure
split
Figure 7:
7: Urban/rural
Urban/rural
split in
in bank
bank account
account ownership
ownership
Overall (N=1,284)
Urban (n=637)
Rural (n=647)
Figure
7:
Urban/rural
split
in
bank
account
ownership
Used to have, but no longer do
Currently have one
Never had
Income
services
Incomedrives
drivesuse
useofofformal
formalfinancial
financial
services
Unsurprisingly, income is a major driver of formal financial inclusion. As Figure 8 below shows, formal inclusion (as
Unsurprisingly, income is a major driver of formal financial inclusion. As Figure 8 below shows, formal
measured by bank account ownership) is below 50% among respondents in the bottom two income quintiles. Income
inclusion
(asdefined
measured
bank account
is sample
below level.
50% among respondents in the bottom two
quintiles
were
based by
on weekly
per capitaownership)
income13 at the
Figure 7: Urban/rural split in bank account ownership
income quintiles. Income quintiles were defined based on weekly per capita income13 at the sample
level.
Figure 7: Urban/rural split in bank account ownership
Figure 6: Financial inclusion by income quintile
10
11
12
13
Pabon,
L., et.
al. “How geographically concentrated is poverty in Fiji?” 81%
Asia Pacific Viewpoint, Vol. 53, No. 2, August 2012. 3% 6%
Top
20%
10%
Annex B contains tables with details results from each section of the survey.
Charts do not always add up to 100% due to rounding or due to “don’t know” or “refuse” responses.
Per capita was defined using the Fiji Bureau of Statistics definition for adult equivalent which classifies children (those age 14 and under) as half an adult.
60-80%
6 | F i n40-60%
ancial
67%
5% 7%
21%
S e r v i c e s D e m a58%
n d S i d e S u r v e y • R3%
e p 8%
u b l i c o f F i 31%
ji
Overall (N=1,284)
Urban (n=637)
Used to have, but no longer do
Rural (n=647)
Currently have one
Never had
Income drives use of formal financial services
Unsurprisingly, income is a major driver of formal financial inclusion. As Figure 8 below shows, formal
inclusion (as measured by bank account ownership) is below 50% among respondents in the bottom two
income quintiles. Income quintiles were defined based on weekly per capita income13 at the sample
level.
Figure
Financial
inclusion
by quintile
income quintile
Figure 8:6:
Financial
inclusion
by income
Top 20%
81%
60-80%
3% 6%
67%
40-60%
5% 7%
58%
20-40%
Bottom 20%
10%
20%
Banked
31%
5% 10%
45%
0%
21%
3% 8%
48%
4%
30%
40%
Other formal
50%
37%
14%
60%
Informal only
10%
37%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Excluded
But as Figure 9 shows, Fiji’s level of financial inclusion among the poorest is lower than that of other upper-middle income
countries included in the Global Findex survey.
Fiji Demand Side Survey
But as Figure 9 shows, Fiji’s level of financial inclusion among the poorest is lower than that of other
Figure 9: Financial
inclusion
by income
quintile,
compared
inclusion
in comparable Global Findex countries
upper-middle
income
countries
included
in the
Globalwith
Findex
survey.
Page 16
Figure 9:80.0%
Financial inclusion by income quintile, compared with inclusion in comparable
76%
69%
Global Findex countries
63%
60.0%
48%
47%
Per capita was defined using the Fiji Bureau of Statistics definition for adult equivalent which classifies children (those age 14
40.0%
and under) as
half an adult. 32%
13
20.0%
0.0%
Lower-middle income
Bottom 40%
Top 60%
Fiji
Upper-middle income
Data from database: Global Findex (Global Financial Inclusion Database), last updated: 04/2015
Data from database: Global Findex (Global Financial Inclusion Database), last updated: 04/2015
Analysis of inclusion strands among respondents earning less than USD $2 per day, a different measure
Analysis of inclusion strands among respondents earning less than USD $2 per day, a different measure from income
from income quintiles, shows that 39% of these respondents are currently banked (Figure 10). However,
quintiles, shows that 39% of these respondents are currently banked (Figure 10). However, nearly 41% are excluded, higher
nearly
arequintile
excluded,
higher than for the lower income quintile as a whole
than for the
lower41%
income
as a whole
Figure 10: Inclusion strand for respondents earning $2 per day or less
Banked (n=143)
Other formal (n=21)
Informal only (n=52)
39%
6%
F i1%
nancial Services Demand Side Survey • Republic of FijI |7
0.0%
Lower-middle income
Bottom 40%
Top 60%
Fiji
Upper-middle income
Data from database: Global Findex (Global Financial Inclusion Database), last updated: 04/2015
Analysis of inclusion strands among respondents earning less than USD $2 per day, a different measure
from income quintiles, shows that 39% of these respondents are currently banked (Figure 10). However,
nearly 41% are excluded, higher than for the lower income quintile as a whole
Figure 10: Inclusion strand for respondents earning $2 per day or less
Figure 10: Inclusion strand for respondents earning $2 per day or less
Banked (n=143)
39%
Other formal (n=21)
Informal only (n=52)
6%
1%
Excluded (n=154)
41%
Formally employed Fijians and entrepreneurs are more likely to be banked
In addition to income levels, formal inclusion differs markedly depending on the income sources of respondents (Figure
Formally
Fijians
entrepreneurs
are
likely incomes
to be banked
11). Formal
employeesemployed
are more likely
to be and
banked
than others, partly
duemore
to the higher
associated with formal
employment,
but partly,toasincome
discussedlevels,
below, formal
because inclusion
many banked
respondents
opendepending
accounts to receive
In addition
differs
markedly
on thepayments,
income sources of
Fiji
Demand
Side Survey
including respondents
salaries. The majority
of
Fijian
adults
receiving
pensions
also
had
bank
accounts.
This
makes
sense
as FNPF
(Figure 11). Formal employees are more likely to be banked than others,
partly due to the
Page 17
accounts are mandatory for salaried workers.
higher incomes associated with formal employment, but partly, as discussed below, because many
banked
respondents
openbyaccounts
to receive payments, including salaries. The majority of Fijian adults
Figure 11:
Financial
inclusion strand
income source
receiving pensions also had bank accounts. This makes sense as FNPF accounts are mandatory for
salaried workers.
Formal income
3% 2% 10%
85%
Casual income
4%
46%
32%
18%
Figure 11: Financial inclusion strand by income source
Self-employment income
68%
Agricultural income
7%
48%
Pension income
3% 11%
27%
19%
4% 5%
91%
0%
10%
Banked
20%
30%
Other formal
40%
50%
Informal only
19%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Excluded
Respondents earning casual or agricultural income are much more likely to be excluded (32% and 27%, respectively) or
agricultural
income
moreemployment
likely to be
excludedwith
(32%
and 27%,
to Respondents
rely on informal earning
sources ofcasual
financeor
only
(18% and 19%).
Casualare
andmuch
agricultural
is associated
lower,
irregular
earnings which
accessible,
andofaffordable
management
tools.
Agricultural
workers tend to
respectively)
or to require
rely onflexible,
informal
sources
finance financial
only (18%
and 19%).
Casual
and agricultural
beemployment
rural and further
from
formal
financial
access
points
as
detailed
below.
is associated with lower, irregular earnings which require flexible, accessible, and
It is
surprising tofinancial
see that 68%
of self-employed
Fijians
are banked.workers
An initialtend
possible
hypothesis
might
be thatfrom
the income
affordable
management
tools.
Agricultural
to be
rural and
further
formal
effect of having a job or owning a business is stronger in driving financial inclusion than the effect of receiving a fixed salary
financial access points as detailed below.
into a bank account. Future research could investigate the financial needs of these entrepreneurs, which are likely to be
much different than those of salaried workers.
It is surprising to see that 68% of self-employed Fijians are banked. An initial possible hypothesis might
be that the income effect of having a job or owning a business is stronger in driving financial inclusion
than the effect of receiving a fixed salary into a bank account. Future research could investigate the
financial needs of these entrepreneurs, which are likely to be much different than those of salaried
workers.
8|Financial
Services Demand Side Survey • Republic of Fiji
Young adults are less likely than older adults to use financial services of any kind
In line with findings on account ownership around the world, young adults in Fiji (those between 15 and
Young adults are less likely than older adults to use financial services of any kind
In line with findings on account ownership around the world, young adults in Fiji (those between 15Fiji
andDemand
20 years) are
lessSurvey
Side
likely to be banked (Figure 12).14 Young adults are also least likely to be using any financial service (41% are completely Page 18
excluded). Many Fijians in this age group might still be completing studies and will be less likely to be earning income. Those
Fiji Demand
between the ages of 30 and 50 are more likely to be banked or using non-bank formal or informal financial
services,Side
whileSurvey
rates of inclusion decrease among respondents over 50.
Page 18
Age range
Age range
Figure 12:
Inclusion strand by age
61-70
60%
1%6%
34%
51-60
61-70
59%
60%
5%6% 8%
1%
29%
34%
41-50
51-60
65%
59%
6%
5% 8%
9%
29%20%
31-40
41-50
63%
65%
7%
6%
9%
9%
21%
20%
4%
11%
7%
9%
28%21%
1% 6% 4%
11%
21-30
31-40
58%
63%
15-20
21-30
51%
58%
15-20 0%
10%
0%
10%
20% 51%30%
Banked
20%
42% 28%
40%
50%
1% 6% 60%
70%
80%
42%
90%
100%
Other formal
30%
40%
Informal only
50%
60%
Excluded
70%
80%
90%
100%
Otherin
formal
Informal
only services
Excluded
Fiji has not achieved Banked
gender parity
access to
financial
A higher proportion of men have bank accounts (68%) compared with women (52%) as shown in Figure
Fiji has not achieved gender parity in access to financial services
Fiji has
genderFindex
paritydata
in access
to financial
services
13.
This not
is inachieved
line with Global
on account
ownership
in upper-middle income countries which
A higher proportion of men have bank accounts (68%) compared with women (52%) as shown in Figure 13. This is in line
found
that,
on data
average,
74%have
of males
accounts
with
formal financial
institutions
with
A higher
proportion
men
bankinhave
accounts
(68%)
compared
(52%)
ascompared
shown
with
Global Findex
onofaccount
ownership
upper-middle
income
countrieswith
whichwomen
found that,
on average,
74% in
of Figure
15
15
67%
of
females.
13.
This
is
in
line
with
Global
Findex
data
on
account
ownership
in
upper-middle
income
countries
which
males have accounts with formal financial institutions compared with 67% of females.
found that, on average, 74% of males have accounts with formal financial institutions compared with
Figure
13:
ownership
15 account
Figure
13:females.
BankBank
account
ownership
by gender by gender
67% of
68%
70% 13: Bank account ownership by gender
Figure
50%
70%
30%
50%
10%
30%
-10%
10%
-10%
52%
68%
22%
9%
22%
9%Men (n=638)
Used to have, but no longer do
Men (n=638)
52%
14%
34%
34%
14%
Women (n=639)
Currently have one
Never had
Women (n=639)
What
is surprising
is thatisathat
higher
of women (14%)
had an (14%)
accounthad
but no
do than
thelonger
case among
menis
What
is surprising
a proportion
higher proportion
of women
an longer
account
but isno
do than
Used
to have,
butexamine
no longer
Never
had than men. The 16 percentage
(9%). Further
research
could
whydo
womenCurrently
are more have
likely one
to close bank
accounts
the case among men (9%). Further research could examine why women are more likely to close bank
point difference between man and women having accounts is significant, and understanding the financial needs and barriers
than
men.
The a16
percentage
pointpolicymakers
between
man
and women
What
surprising
is that
higher
proportion
ofdifference
women may
(14%)
had
an account
but nohaving
longeraccounts
do than is
toaccounts
accessisfor
women
specifically
could
be an
area Fijian
wish
to prioritize.
significant,
and understanding
the financial
barriers
access are
for women
specifically
theDemirguc-Kunt,
case among
men (9%). Further
researchneeds
could and
examine
whytowomen
more likely
to close could
bank be
Asli, et. al. “The Global Findex Database 2014: Measuring Financial Inclusion around the World.” World Bank Policy Research Working Paper 7255, April 2015.
World
Bank.
Global
Regional
Dashboard
(Income Group
Comparisons).
2014. (accessedman
7 April, 2015)
an
area
Fijian
policymakers
wish
to prioritize.
accounts
thanFinancial
men.Inclusion
TheIndicators:
16may
percentage
point
difference
between
and women having accounts is
significant, and understanding the financial needs and barriers to access for women specifically could be
an area Fijian policymakers may wish to prioritize.
14
15
15
Financial Services Demand Side Survey • Republic of FijI |9
World Bank. Global Financial Inclusion Indicators: Regional Dashboard (Income Group Comparisons). 2014. (accessed 7 April,
2015)
Fiji Demand Side Survey
Page 19
Formal inclusion differs by ethnicity
The data shows large differences in financial access by ethnicity (Figure 11). A larger proportion of IndoFormal
ethnicity
Fijians inclusion
and othersdiffers
(likelyby
those
that have immigrated to Fiji from other countries) are banked (70% and
The
data
shows
large
differences
in
financial
access
by ethnicity (Figure 11). A larger proportion of Indo-Fijians and others
76%) than iTaukei or indigenous Fijians
(52%).
(likely those that have immigrated to Fiji from other countries) are banked (70% and 76%) than iTaukei or indigenous Fijians
(52%).
30% of iTaukei are excluded from any financial services, and 13% belong to the “informal only” inclusion
30%
of iTaukei
are excluded
from any
services,
and 13%isbelong
to theamong
“informal
only” inclusion
strand.
the
strand.
On the
other hand,
usefinancial
of informal
services
very low
Indo-Fijians
(3%)
andOn
others
other hand,
use of informal services is very low among Indo-Fijians (3%) and others (2%)16. Further research can explore
16
(2%) . Further research can explore whether this disparity is due primarily to differences in income,
whether this disparity is due primarily to differences in income, location, or cultural factors related to financial management.
location, or cultural factors related to financial management.
Figure 14: Financial inclusion strands by ethnicity
Figure 14: Financial inclusion strands by ethnicity
80%
iTaukei (n=754)
Indo-Fijian (n=478)
60%
40%
70%
Other (n=52)
76%
52%
30%
24%
20%
16%
13%
3% 2%
5% 3% 6%
0%
Excluded (n=231)
Informal only (n=87) Other formal (n=39)
Banked (n=397)
Former formal
formalaccount
accountownership
ownershipis ishigh,
high,
even
among
respondents
excluded
\Former
even
among
respondents
thatthat
are are
nownow
excluded
Rates
former
formal
account
ownership
are high
across
board, among
and particularly
amonginclusion
the “other
Rates
of of
former
formal
account
ownership
are high across
the board,
andthe
particularly
the “other banked”
strand
(Table
3).
Perhaps
more
surprisingly,
many
in
the
“excluded”
and
“informal
only”
categories
(27%
and
26%,
banked” inclusion strand (Table 3). Perhaps more surprisingly, many in the “excluded” and “informal
respectively) also said they used to have bank accounts but no longer have them.
only” categories (27% and 26%, respectively) also said they used to have bank accounts but no longer
have them.
Table 3: History of bank account usage by financial inclusion category
Table 3: History of bank account usage by financial
inclusionInformal
category
Excluded
only
(N=358)
(N=103)
Other formal
(N=54)
Excluded 27% Informal only
Other formal
26%
54%
(N=358)
(N=103)
(N=54)
Confidence intervals
[21.4, 33.3]
[17.7, 35.4]
[39.1, 67.3]
Unbanked respondents who previously
27%
26%
54%
One
for the
high proportion of people who used to have bank accounts is likely that accounts which are inactive are
hadreason
a bank
account
closed after 6 months. Indeed, when asked why they no longer had bank accounts, half of previously banked respondents
Confidence
[17.7,
35.4]
[39.1,
answered that their account
was closedintervals
because they no[21.4,
longer33.3]
used it, followed
by 28%
answering that
they 67.3]
no longer
Unbanked respondents who previously had a bank account
needed the account (Figure 12).
One reason for the high proportion of people who used to have bank accounts is likely that accounts
which are inactive are closed after 6 months. Indeed, when asked why they no longer had bank
accounts, half of previously banked respondents answered that their account was closed because they
no longer used it, followed by 28% answering that they no longer needed the account (Figure 12).
16
While the DSS did not ask for further clarification for those of “other” ethnicity, these respondents appear to be other Pacific
Islanders or those who may have emigrated from other countries abroad.
16
While the DSS did not ask for further clarification for those of “other” ethnicity, these respondents appear to be other Pacific Islanders or those who may have emigrated from other
countries abroad.
10 | F i n a n c i a l
Services Demand Side Survey • Republic of Fiji
Fiji Demand Side Survey
Page 20
Fiji Demand Side Survey
Page 20
Figure 15: Reasons for no longer using a bank account (%) 17
Figure
Reasons
nousing
longer
using
a bank17 account (%) 17
Figure
15:15:
Reasons
forusage/did
no for
longer
bank
account
Low
not use a
account
often (%)
No longer needed the account
Low usage/did not use account often
Could not or did not want to maintain minimum balance
No longer needed the account
Branch was too far
Could not or did not want to maintain minimum balance
Fees were too high
Branch was too far
Bad treatment
Fees were too high
28%
11%
8%
50%
28%
11%
8%
8%
2%
0%
Bad treatment
Note: Multiple answers allowed
50%
0%
8%
10%
2%
10%
20%
20%
30%
30%
40%
40%
50%
50%
60%
60%
Note: Multiple answers allowed
Further
research with previously banked clients might explore the reasons for initially opening accounts
Note: Multiple answers allowed
and
examine
their
othermight
formal
or informal
products
determine
whether
moretheir
Further
research
with current
previouslyusage
bankedofclients
explore
the reasons
for initiallytoopening
accounts
and examine
current
usage
of other
formal
orstringent
informal banked
products
determine
whether
more
flexible
products
(with lessopening
stringent accounts
usage
Further
research
with
previously
clients
might
explore
the
reasons
for initially
flexible
products
(with
less
usage to
requirements)
might
be
more
appropriate.
requirements)
might
be
more
appropriate.
and examine their current usage of other formal or informal products to determine whether more
Barriers
to formal
inclusion
flexible products
(with
less stringent usage requirements) might be more appropriate.
Barriers to formal inclusion
Unbanked
respondents
cite lack of money
as athat
reason
having
an account
Barriers
formal inclusion
Half
(50%) ofto
unbanked
respondents
answered
theyfor
do not
not have
a bank
account due to lack of
Unbanked respondents cite lack of money as a reason for not having an account
Half (50%) of unbanked respondents answered that they do not have a bank account due to lack of money (Figure 16).
Unbanked
cite lack of money as a reason for not having an account
money
(Figurerespondents
16).
Half (50%) of unbanked respondents answered that they do not have a bank account due to lack of
Figure 16: Self-reported reasons for not using banks
money (Figure 16).
Figure 16: Self-reported reasons for not using banks
Not enough money
Figure 16: Self-reported reasons for not using banks
50%
Someone else in household has account
23%
Not enough money
50%
Banks are too far
20%
Someone else in household has account
23%
Lacks documents
17%
Banks are too far
20%
Banks are too expensive
13%
Lacks documents
17%
Does not trust banks
1%
Banks are too expensive
13%
Bad experience with banks
1%
Does not trust banks
1%
Religious reasons
1%
Bad experience with banks
1%
Note:
Note: Multiple
Multiple answers
answersallowed
allowed
Religious reasons
1%
This result
isisnot
surprising;
across
all respondents
of the Global
Findex
surveys,
over 60%
of respondents
reported
This
result
not
surprising;
across
all
respondents
of the
Global
Findex
surveys,
over 60%
of “not
Note: Multiple answers allowed
18
18
having enough reported
money” as “not
a reason
for not
having amoney”
bank account.
However,
answer
could
hide complex
reasoning
respondents
having
enough
as a reason
forthis
not
having
a bank
account.
and motivations, from a true lack of savings to a false perception about what the banks might require from their customers.
This result
isanswer
notthat
surprising;
across
all
respondents
of the
Global Findex
surveys,
overof60%
of to a
However,
thisknow
could
complex
reasoning
and
motivations,
from
a 19true
lack
savings
Given that we
even
thehide
very poor
have complex
financial
management
strategies,
respondents
were asked
18
respondents
reported
“not
having
enough
money”
as
a
reason
for
not
having
a
bank
account.
a follow-up question to clarify their responses and provide nuance to this answer. While 66% of these respondents did
that they
theircould
moneyhide
sooncomplex
after receiving
it (Figureand
14),motivations,
others mentioned
wanting
easy
access
to moneyto a
17answer
However,
thisspend
answer
reasoning
from
a true
lack
of savings
Multiple
answers
were allowed.
18when needed (10.7%), and the high cost of travel or bank fees (9.7%), as well as minimum balance requirements (8.1%) as
Asli Demirguc-Kunt and Leora Klapper, “Measuring Financial Inclusion: Explaining Variation in Use of Financial Services across
additional reasons.
and
17 within Countries.” Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, Spring 2013.
answers
were allowed.
17 Multiple
Multiple answers
were allowed.
18
18 Asli
Asli Demirguc-Kunt
and Leora
Klapper,
“Measuring
Financial
Inclusion: Explaining
Variation
in Use of Financial
Services across
and within
Brookings Papers
on Eco- across
Demirguc-Kunt
and
Leora
Klapper,
“Measuring
Financial
Inclusion:
Explaining
Variation
in Countries.
Use of”Financial
Services
nomic Activity, Spring 2013.
and
within
Countries.”
Brookings
Papers
on
Economic
Activity,
Spring
2013.
19 Collins, et. al. Portfolios of the Poor: How the World’s Poor Live on $2 a Day. Princeton University Press, 2009.
F i n a n c i a l S e r v i c e s D e m a n d S i d e S u r v e y • R e p u b l i c o f F i j I | 11
false perception about what the banks might require from their customers. Given that we know that
even the very poor have complex financial management strategies, 19 respondents were asked a followup question to clarify their responses and provide nuance to this answer. While 66% of these
respondents did answer that they spend their money soon after receiving it (Figure 14), others
mentioned wanting easy access to money when needed (10.7%), and the high cost of travel or bank fees
(9.7%), as well as minimum balance requirements (8.1%) as additional reasons.
Figure 17: You said that you don’t have a bank account, because you don’t have eno ugh
Figure
17: You
saiddoes
that you
don’t
have a20bank account, because you don’t have enough money. What does that
money.
What
that
mean?
20
mean?
I spend my money shortly after I receive it
65.5
I prefer to have easy access to my money when I need it
10.7
The bank fees or cost of travel is not worth it
9.7
I cannot or do not want to meet the minimal balance
8.1
The time to travel or wait at the bank is not worth it
6.1
I prefer to save in other ways
5.7
Banks prefer wealthier clients
4.7
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Many
unbanked
respondents
money
quickly
with
having
little
money,This
which
Many
unbanked
respondents
confuseconfuse
spending spending
money quickly
with having
little
money,
which
are distinct.
also are
suggests
that
unbanked
Fijians
might
not
have
a
good
understanding
of
bank
products
beyond
longer-term
savings
distinct. This also suggests that unbanked Fijians might not have a good understanding of bankproducts.
products
Banks and policymakers might explore marketing or designing transactional products which allow clients to deposit and
beyond
longer-term
savings
products.
Banks
and
policymakers
might
explore
marketing
or
designing
spend quickly without imposing high fees. Such product features could meet the immediate needs of the unbanked better
transactional
products
which
allowfrequent
clientstransactions
to depositare
and
spend quickly without imposing high fees.
than
traditional deposit
accounts
in which
expensive.
Such product features could meet the immediate needs of the unbanked better than traditional deposit
Unbanked respondents think that they lack documentation, but do not
accounts in which frequent transactions are expensive.
Although 60% of Fijians have an account with a bank or credit union, nearly a third (27%) of Fijians are still excluded from
any type of financial service. Lack of access to documents needed to open an account does not appear to be a barrier:
Unbanked respondents think that they lack documentation, but do not
nearly all respondents have at least one form of primary identification required to open a bank account: 97% of respondents
Although
60% of Fijians
have
account
a bankdriver’s
or credit
union,
thirdOnly
(27%)
of Fijians
have
a birth certificate,
and 95%
havean
a valid
photowith
ID (passport,
license,
voternearly
ID card,a etc.).
a handful
of are
respondents
(0.5%)
said any
they type
had neither
a birth certificate,
photo
nor a tax
15, Annex
still excluded
from
of financial
service. aLack
ofID,
access
to identification
documentsnumber
needed(Table
to open
an B).
Despite
this,does
whennot
asked
why they
currentlynearly
have anall
account,
17% of unbanked
cited lack
of
account
appear
to do
benot
a barrier:
respondents
have atrespondents
least one form
of primary
documentation
as
a
reason
(Figure
16).
This
suggests
that
either
the
unbanked
do
not
fully
understand
the
minimum
identification required to open a bank account: 97% of respondents have a birth certificate, and 95%
documentation required to open an account, or that secondary documentation required to open accounts (letters of
have
a valid
IDstatements,
(passport,and
driver’s
votermay
ID be
card,
etc.). Only
reference,
salaryphoto
or utility
or prooflicense,
of residence)
preventing
usageabyhandful
a portionof
ofrespondents
the unbanked.
(0.5%) said they had neither a birth certificate, a photo ID, nor a tax identification number (Table 15,
Distances to access points are especially high for rural clients
Annex B).
Respondents said that they would have to travel relatively long distances to reach the nearest financial access point, but this
barrier is especially relevant for rural respondents (Figure 18). The average distance to the nearest bank branch is only 3.3
kilometers (km) for urban respondents, but 27.1 km for rural respondents. Rural respondents who live very far from a bank
branch (one respondent: 290 km) skew the mean value, nonetheless 55% of rural respondents said the nearest bank is more
19
al. Portfolios
of the Poor:especially
How the in
World’s
thanCollins,
10 kmet.
away,
which is significant,
Fiji. Poor Live on $2 a Day. Princeton University Press, 2009.
20
Multiple responses allowed
In line with the supply-side data from the IMF FAS mentioned previously, respondents report that ATM penetration is
greater than that of bank branches, although the distances are still high in rural areas. The average reported distance to the
nearest ATM was 24.9 km for rural respondents and 2.8 km for urban respondents. The same discrepancy exists for other
channels: bank agents (13.6 km for rural, 2.2 km for urban) and mobile money agents (17 km and 2.2 km). These differences
translate into differences in expenses and time spent.
20
Multiple responses allowed
12 | F i n a n c i a l
Services Demand Side Survey • Republic of Fiji
rural respondents. Rural respondents who live very far from a bank branch (one respondent: 290 km)
skew the mean value, nonetheless 55% of rural respondents said the nearest bank is more than 10 km
away, which is significant, especially in Fiji.
In line with the supply-side data from the IMF FAS mentioned previously, respondents report that ATM
penetration is greater than that of bank branches, although the distances are still high in rural areas. The
average reported distance to the nearest ATM was 24.9 km for rural respondents and 2.8 km for urban
respondents. The same discrepancy exists for other channels: bank agents (13.6 km for rural, 2.2 km for
urban) and mobile money agents (17 km and 2.2 km). These differences translate into differences in
expenses and time spent.
Figure 18: Average self-reported distance to nearest access point (in kilometers)
Km
Figure 18: Average self-reported distance to nearest access point (in kilometers)
30
27
Urban
25
25
Rural
20
17
14
15
14
13
10
5
Total
10
8
3
3
2
2
0
Distance to bank branch
Distance to ATM
Distance to bank agent
Distance to mobile
money agent
The distance to access points likely affects a person’s likelihood of having a bank account. Based on the
The distance to access points likely affects a person’s likelihood of having a bank account. Based on the DSS results, distance
DSS results,
distance
to play
much
more
important
rolethe
in rural
areas.
While
innearest
urbanaccess
areas
the
Fiji
Demand
Side
Survey
seems
to play a much
moreseems
important
role inarural
areas.
While
in urban areas
average
distance
to the
point
is similar
across access
we see
a pronounced
in distance
access points
between
banked
and unbanked
average
distance
to thepoints,
nearest
access
point is gap
similar
acrosstoaccess
points,
we see
a pronounced
gap in
Page
23
respondents
in
rural
areas
(Figure
19).
Thus,
while
rural
unbanked
respondents
live
an
average
of
32
km
from
the
nearest
distance to access points between banked and unbanked respondents in rural areas (Figure 19). Thus,
bank branch, even banked rural respondents live an average 22 km from the nearest branch.
Km
while rural unbanked respondents live an average of 32 km from the nearest bank branch, even banked
Figure
19: Banked/unbanked
split
distance
to nearest
access point (in kilometers)
rural 19:
respondents
live an average
22 kminto
from
the nearest
branch.
Figure
Banked/unbanked
split in distance
nearest
access point
(in kilometers)
35
32
30
25
Urban banked
Urban unbanked
Rural banked
Rural unbanked
22.1
20
15
11.7
10
5
11.2
7.7
6.7
3.2 3.4
2.1 1.6
1.3 1.5
6.5
1.5
8.6
1
0
Distance to bank branch
Distance to ATM
Distance to bank agent
Distance to mobile money
agent
To open an account, one needs to travel to a bank branch. Indeed, 92% of respondents opened their bank accounts at the
bank branch itself, and only 8% of respondents opened their accounts through rural banking initiatives, school banking,
open an
anagent
account,
one to
needs
to travel
to aofbank
branch.
Indeed,
92% of
their
orTo
through
who came
their village
or place
residence
to open
the account.
In respondents
order to use theopened
account, one
would
also
need
to
be
able
to
travel
relatively
frequently
to
an
access
point.
With
an
average
distance
of
32
km
to
the
bank accounts at the bank branch itself, and only 8% of respondents opened their accounts through
nearest
bank, 12 km
to the nearest
ATMbanking,
and 11 kmor
to through
the nearest
agent,
distance
respondents
from
rural banking
initiatives,
school
anbank
agent
who
cameimpedes
to theirrural
village
or place
of
formal financial inclusion. Detailed data on availability of access points can be found in Table 16 of Annex B.
residence to open the account. In order to use the account, one would also need to be able to travel
As a result of these long distances, rural banked respondents report an average travel time to the bank branch they use to
relatively frequently to an access point. With an average distance of 32 km to the nearest bank, 12 km to
access their account at about double that of urban banked respondents (41.9 minutes and 21.7 minutes, respectively). As
the nearest
ATM rural
and banked
11 km respondents
to the nearest
bank
agent,
distance
impedes
respondents
from
formal
Table
4 below shows,
reported
that
opening
their bank
accountsrural
took longer
as well (64.5
hours
for
rural
respondents
compared
with
31.1
hours
for
urban
respondents).
financial inclusion. Detailed data on availability of access points can be found in Table 16 of Annex B.
As a result of these long distances, rural banked respondents report an average travel time to the bank
branch they use to access their account at about double that of urban banked respondents (41.9
minutes and 21.7 minutes, respectively). As Table 4 below shows, rural banked respondents reported
that opening their bank accounts took longer as well (64.5 hours for rural respondents compared with
31.1 hours for urban respondents).
F i n a n c i a l S e r v i c e s D e m a n d S i d e S u r v e y • R e p u b l i c o f F i j I | 13
Table 4: Banked respondents’ wait times
Among respondents with bank
Mean
95% confidence interval
Table 4: Banked respondents’ wait times
Among respondents with bank accounts
How long does it usually take you to
reach the branch that you use?
How long did you have to wait at the
bank to complete and submit your
application?
Once your application was submitted,
how long until the account was opened?
Mean
95% confidence interval
Urban (n=461)
21.7 min
[17.7 — 24.4]
Rural (n=299)
41.9 min
[30.2 — 53.5]
Overall (N=760)
29.0 min
[23.9 — 34.1]
Urban (n=452)
.86 hours
[.75 — .97]
Rural (n=296)
1 hour
[.88 — 1.13]
Overall (N=748)
0.9 hours
[.8, 1.0]
Urban (n=452)
31.1 hours
[8.1 — 44.2]
Rural (n=298)
64.5 hours
[37.0 — 92.1]
Overall (N=750)
44 hours
[29.4 — 58.6]
Despite the long distances Fijian adults (especially rural Fijians) would have to travel to reach financial access points, only
20% of unbanked respondents cited distance as a reason for not having a bank account. This may imply that, while distance
is a barrier for rural respondents, there may be a willingness to travel some length for appropriate, affordable services which
better meet their needs.
Indeed, combined with the information on lack of documentation, perceived and reported barriers of unbanked Fijians do
not appear to align. Simple information campaigns on the products offered by banks and minimal documentation required
might make tremendous progress in increasing inclusion among the unbanked.
Interestingly, lack of trust was only named by 1% of unbanked respondents (compared to 13% of all unbanked Global Findex
respondents).21 This finding suggests that banks do have an opportunity to close the gap with unbanked Fijians.
21
Asli Demirguc-Kunt and Leora Klapper, “Measuring Financial Inclusion: Explaining Variation in Use of Financial Services across and within Countries.” Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, Spring 2013.
14 | F i n a n c i a l
Services Demand Side Survey • Republic of Fiji
Spotlight on bank account usage:
Many Fijians use accounts intensively but use of
account features (such as mobile banking) is low
The Fiji DSS asked about account details for banked adults, up to three accounts per person. Most banked respondents
(79%) say they only have one bank account; one fifth of banked respondents (21%) have two or more accounts. For the
purposes of the analysis, we report primarily on the first reported account unless otherwise specified.
Fiji Demand Side Survey
Page 25
Most banked adults have maintained their accounts for several years
Among banked respondents, more than half (57.9%) opened their first reported account in 2010 or earlier (Figure 20).
Only 26.6% opened their accounts in 2013 or 2014. There is also some indication from the data that men are more likely to
Fiji
Demand
Side
Survey
have
held this
account
for longer
than women
have.reported
This may saybank
something
about
variable
stickiness
of bank
Figure
20:
Yearcontinuously
of account
opening
for first
account
25
accounts for men and women. Again, further research is needed on the quality dimension — to understand,Page
for example,
whether women are more active and discriminating shoppers for account features.
0%
12%
7%
Figure
Yearofofaccount
account opening
for for
firstfirst
reported
bank account
Figure
20:20:
Year
opening
reported
bank account
12%
15%
0%
14%
7%
14%
15%
7%
8%
37%
7%
8%
1990 or earlier
2011
1990 or earlier
2011
1991-2000
37%
2012
1991-2000
2012
2001-2010
2013
2001-2010
2013
The majority of banked adults opened accounts to receive payments or to save
Across
the entire
sample,
38%opened
of Fijians
have atto
least
one savings
account,
and 28% have at least one
The
majority
of banked
adults
accounts
receive
payments
or to save
basic
access
account.
Among
banked
only,
63%
have
savings
account and
Across
theorof
entire
sample,
38% ofopened
Fijians have
at leastrespondents
one
account,
and 28%
atleast
leastone
one basic
or access
The majority
banked
adults
accounts
to savings
receive
payments
orhave
toatsave
account.
Among
bankedorrespondents
only, 63%
have at21).
least one savings account and 47% have a basic or access account
47%
have
a
basic
access
account
(Figure
Across the entire sample, 38% of Fijians have at least one savings account, and 28% have at least one
(Figure 21).
basic orFigure
access account.
Among
banked
respondents
63% have at least one savings account and
21: Account
types
among
bankedonly,
respondents
47% have
a
basic
or
access
account
(Figure
21).
Figure 21: Account types among banked respondents
Figure 21: Account types among banked respondents
Rural (n=301)
49%
49%
Rural (n=301)
Urban (n=472)
58%
45%
45%
Urban (n=472)
47%
Overall (N=773)
47%
Overall (N=773)
0%
0%
10%
10%
20%
30%
Basic or access account
20%
30%
40%
40%
58%
50%
Savings account
50%
60%
66%
66%
63%
63%
60%
70%
70%
F i n a account
n c i a l S e r vSavings
i c e s Daccount
e m a n d S i d e S u r v e y • R e p u b l i c o f F i j I | 15
Basic or access
Nearly all banked respondents said they opened their accounts to either receive payments or save
money; just 2% opened an account to get a loan (Figure 22). Half (49%) of respondents opened an
Nearly all banked respondents said they opened their accounts to either receive payments or save
Fiji Demand Side Survey
Nearly all banked respondents said they opened their accounts to either receive payments or save money; just
2% opened
Page
Fiji Demand
Side26
Survey
an account to get a loan (Figure 22). Half (49%) of respondents opened an account to receive a salary
or remittances,
and an
Page
26
additional 7% said their main reason was to receive government benefits. Another 43% of the respondents said they
opened
account(s) in order to save money. More details on reasons for opening accounts can be found in Annex B.
Figure 22: Main reasons for opening a bank account
Figure
reasons
for opening
a bank account
Figure
22: 22:
MainMain
reasons
for opening
a bank account
To receive a payment (salary, remittances,
etc)
To receive a payment
(salary, remittances,
49%
49%
To save
etc)
43%
To save
To keep money safe
43%
12%
To keep money safe
To receive government benefits
12%
7%
To receive government benefits
Other reasons
Other reasons
To get a loan
To get a loan
7%
6%
6%
2%
2%
In line with the reasons for opening accounts, receiving payments and saving money are the primary
uses
the
accounts
mentioned
by
banked
respondents.
In for
lineline
withwith
the reasons
for opening
accounts,
receiving
payments and
saving money
are themoney
primary are
usesthe
for the
accounts
In
the reasons
for opening
accounts,
receiving
payments
and saving
primary
mentioned by banked respondents.
uses
forReasons
the accounts
mentioned
by banked
respondents.
Figure
23:
for using
a bank
account
over the past 12 months
Figure
23: 23:
Reasons
for using
bank account
the past
12 months
Figure
Reasons
forausing
a bankover
account
over
the past 12 months
To receive money or payments for work or for
selling or
goods
To receive money
payments for work or for
49%
49%
selling goods
To save money
36%
To save money
To receive money or payments from the
government
To receive
money or payments from the
government
To receive money from family members living
elsewhere
To receive money
from family members living
elsewhere
To send money to family members living
1%
elsewhere
To send money
to family members living
Note: Multiple answers allowed
elsewhere
36%
12%
12%
8%
8%
1%
Note: Multiple answers allowed
“Receiving money or payment for work” in Figure 23 corresponds primarily with salary payments: less than 5% of banked
Note: Multiple
allowed
respondents
saidanswers
they
use
their for
account
for in
business
(Table 5). It
may be interesting
to learn
more about
“Receiving
money
or payment
work”
Figurepurposes
23 corresponds
primarily
with salary
payments:
less whether
employees (especially government employees) are obligated to open a bank account to receive salary payments, and
than
5%
of they
banked
respondents
saidfor
they
use in
their
account
for business purposes (Table 5). It may be
“Receiving
money
or payment
work”
Figure
23 corresponds
whether
have
a choice
as to the bank
at which
they
receive
their salaries. primarily with salary payments: less
interesting
to of
learn
morerespondents
about whether
(especially
are obligated
tobe
than 5%
banked
saidemployees
they use their
accountgovernment
for businessemployees)
purposes (Table
5). It may
openinteresting
a bank account
to receive
salarywhether
payments,
and whether
they have
a choice employees)
as to the bank
to learn
more about
employees
(especially
government
areatobligated to
whichopen
theyareceive
their
salaries.
bank account to receive salary payments, and whether they have a choice as to the bank at
which they receive their salaries.
16 | F i n a n c i a l
Services Demand Side Survey • Republic of Fiji
Fiji Demand Side Survey
Page 27
Table 5: Do you use your account(s) for personal transactions, business purposes or
both?
Business or personal usage
%
95% confidence interval
Personal transactions only
95.7%
[93.7%,97.1%]
Table 5: Do you use your account(s) for personal transactions, business purposes or both?
Business purposes only
0.6%
[0.2%,1.7%]
Business or personal usage
%
95% confidence interval
Personal and business transactions
3.5%
[2.2%,5.5%]
Personal transactions only
95.7%
[93.7%,97.1%]
Business purposes only
0.6%
[0.2%,1.7%]
When
we look
reasons
for opening bank accounts
Personal
and at
business
transactions
3.5%by type of employment,
[2.2%,5.5%] it becomes even more
apparent that formally employed Fijian adults are likely opening accounts to receive salaries (Figure 24).
When we look
reasons
for opening of
bank
accounts by self-employed
type of employment,
becomes
even more
apparent
that formally
Interestingly,
a at
higher
percentage
agricultural,
anditcasual
laborers
opened
accounts
to
employed Fijian adults are likely opening accounts to receive salaries (Figure 24). Interestingly, a higher percentage of
save
or to keep money safe compared with formally employed adults suggesting a demand for formal
agricultural, self-employed and casual laborers opened accounts to save or to keep money safe compared with formally
savings
products
among these
adults.
employed
adults suggesting
a demand
for formal savings products among these adults.
Figure 24: Reason for opening bank account, by employment type
Figure 24: Reason for opening bank account, by employment type
9%
10%
8%
5%
4%
Other reasons
27%
49%
To save
4%
1%
2%
3%
To get a loan
5%
7%
To receive government benefits
2%
5%
7%
12%
18%
23%
36%
35%
40%
To receive a payment
0%
53%
26%
10%
To keep money safe
Pension
47%
34%
10%
Agriculture
20%
30%
Self employment
40%
48%
81%
50%
Casual labor
60%
70%
80%
90%
Formal
There is some evidence to believe that bank accounts opened to receive payments are primarily used for so-called “dump-
There
some
evidence
to employees
believe that
bank
accounts
opened
toand
receive
payments
areallprimarily
used for
and is
pull”
behavior,
in which
receive
a regular
salary
payment
withdraw
all or nearly
of the payment
to
transact“dump-and
in cash, ratherpull”
than behavior,
to build savings
or access
other financial
services
(Figure salary
25). Only
25% of account
holders that
so-called
in which
employees
receive
a regular
payment
and withdraw
opened an account to receive a payment or government benefits have made deposits into their accounts in the last 30 days,
all and
or nearly
all of the payment to transact in cash, rather than to build savings or access other financial
56% claim to have never made a deposit. Additionally, a combined 78% of those who opened an account primarily to
services
(Figure
25).
Onlya 25%
of 1-2
account
holders
opened
an account
to receive
payment
or or
receive payments
receive
deposit
or 3-5 times
per that
month,
suggesting
a regular payment
cyclea from
an employer
social
welfare
scheme.
government benefits have made deposits into their accounts in the last 30 days, and 56% claim to have
never made a deposit. Additionally, a combined 78% of those who opened an account primarily to
receive payments receive a deposit 1-2 or 3-5 times per month, suggesting a regular payment cycle from
an employer or social welfare scheme.
F i n a n c i a l S e r v i c e s D e m a n d S i d e S u r v e y • R e p u b l i c o f F i j I | 17
Fiji Demand Side Survey
Fiji Demand SidePage
Survey
28
Page 28
Figure 25: Frequency of deposits into bank accounts
Figure
25:Frequency
Frequency
of deposits
intoaccounts
bank accounts
Figure 25:
of deposits
into bank
80%
80%
59%
56%
60%
59%
56%
44% 44%
60%
44% 44%
40%
25%
24%
40%
25% 18%
24% 17%
12%
20%
18%
17%
12%
20%
0%
0%
Last time
Last time someone
Last time
75%
75%
13%
13%
12%
12%
Never
Never
In the past 30 days
Last time someone
In the past 30 days
Last time
Last
someone
Last time
Last
someone
respondent
else time
deposited
into
respondent
else time
deposited
into
respondent
respondent
deposited
into else deposited
account into
deposited
into else deposited
account into
More than 30 days
deposited
into
account
deposited
into
account
More
account
account
ago than 30 days
account
account
ago
Account was opened to save or keep
Account was opened to receive
Account was money
openedsafe
to save or keep
Account was
opened to receive
payments
or government
benefits
money
safe
payments
or
government
The data suggests that accounts that were opened to save or keep moneybenefits
safe are being used for this
The
data suggests
that accounts
were
openedmore
to save
or keep
money
safe
are
being
used for
purpose.
These respondents
arethat
making
deposits
often
onsafe
their
own
(88%
had
deposited
in this
the
The data suggests
that accounts are
that making
were opened
to savemore
or keep
money
areown
being
usedhad
for this
purpose. in
These
purpose.
These
respondents
deposits
often
on
their
(88%
deposited
the
past
60 days),
deposits
others
lower.
respondents
arewhile
making
depositsfrom
more often
onare
theirmuch
own (88%
had deposited in the past 60 days), while deposits from
past
60 are
days),
while
others
much
lower.deposits from others are much lower.
Figure 26: Frequency of deposits into bank accounts by purpose of account opening (per
Figure
26:
22 Frequency of deposits into bank accounts by purpose of account opening (per
22
month)
Figure 26:
22 Frequency of deposits into bank accounts by purpose of account opening (per month)
month)
50%
50%
39% 39%
39%
40%
39% 39%
34% 39%
40%
34%
30%
30%
16%
20%
15%
12%
16%
20%
15%
12%
6%
10%
6%
10%
0%
0% Account was opened to save or Account was opened to receive
Accountkeep
was money
openedsafe
to save or Account
was opened
to receive
payments
or government
keep money safe
paymentsbenefits
or government
benefits
None
Less than once per month
1-2 times
None
Less than once per month
1-2 times
40%
40%
24%
24%
27%
27%
9%
9%
Overall
Overall
3-5 times
3-5 times
Figure 27
27 and
2828
below
reinforce
these these
themes:themes:
many of those
intended
to save
are doing
so, and
many
of
Figure
andFigure
Figure
below
reinforce
manywho
of those
who
intended
to save
are
doing
those
who
intended
to
receive
payments
are
making
frequent
withdrawals.
(The
survey
did
not
probe
what
proportion
of
Figure
and of
Figure
28who
below
reinforce
these themes:
many
those frequent
who intended
to save are
so,
and27
many
those
intended
to receive
payments
areof
making
withdrawals.
(Thedoing
survey
payments
made
into
accounts
are
withdrawn
immediately.)
so,
those
who intended
to receive
payments
are making
frequent withdrawals.
(The survey
didand
not many
probeof
what
proportion
of payments
made
into accounts
are withdrawn
immediately.)
did not probe what proportion of payments made into accounts are withdrawn immediately.)
22
22
Less than once per month refers to deposits or withdrawals which are made irregularly and only a few times per year.
Less than once per month refers to deposits or withdrawals which are made irregularly and only a few times per year.
22
Less than once per month refers to deposits or withdrawals which are made irregularly and only a few times per year.
18 | F i n a n c i a l
Services Demand Side Survey • Republic of Fiji
Fiji Demand Side Survey
Page 29
Figure
Frequency
of withdrawals
from bank accounts
Figure
27:27:
Frequency
of withdrawals
from bank accounts
100%
82%
80%
Never
62%
60%
40%
41%
25%
In the past 30 days
34%
20%
10%
8%
21%
17%
More than 30 days
ago
0%
Account was opened to
save or keep money safe
Account was opened to
receive payments or
government benefits
Overall
Figure
28:28:
Number
of withdrawals
from bankfrom
accounts
per accounts
month
Figure
Number
of withdrawals
bank
per month
50%
40%
30%
37% 39%
36%
33%
29%
23%
23%
20%
14%
13%
11%
10%
1%
5%
26%
7%
4%
0%
Account was opened to save or Account was opened to receive
keep money safe
payments or government
benefits
None
Less than once per month
1-2 times
Overall
3-5 times
6 times
These findings on deposit and withdrawal behavior can be better appreciated in the context of available data from
These findings on deposit and withdrawal behavior can be better appreciated in the context of available
Indonesia, the Philippines and other upper-middle income countries. As Figure 29 below shows, bank account holders
Indonesia,
the Philippines
and much
otherless
upper-middle
countries.
As Figure 29
below
indata
thosefrom
countries
make deposits
and withdrawals
frequently thanincome
do the Fijian
survey respondents.
A higher
proportion
of Fijian
bankedholders
respondents
make deposits
3 ormake
more times
per month
than in comparable
countries,
and fewer
shows, bank
account
in those
countries
deposits
and withdrawals
much
less frequently
Fijians
make
no
deposits
at
all.
than do the Fijian survey respondents. A higher proportion of Fijian banked respondents make deposits
3 or more times per month than in comparable countries, and fewer Fijians make no deposits at all.
F i n a n c i a l S e r v i c e s D e m a n d S i d e S u r v e y • R e p u b l i c o f F i j I | 19
Fiji Demand Side Survey
Page 30
countries
Figure 29: Monthly deposits
deposits and
and withdrawals
withdrawalsininFiji
Fijiand
andamong
amongcomparable
comparable
countries
60%
50%
40%
51% 47%
48%
40%
41%
41%
42%
47%
44%
33%
32%
43%
42%
38%
39%
36%
30%
27%
30%
20%
15%
7% 9% 7%
10%
14%
9%
0%
0
1 to 2
3+
0
Deposits per month
Fiji
Indonesia
1 to 2
3+
Withdrawals per month
Philippines
Upper-Middle Income Countries
Data from database: Global Findex (Global Financial Inclusion Database), last updated: 04/2015
Data from database: Global Findex (Global Financial Inclusion Database), last updated: 04/2015
Usage of bank account features, such as mobile banking and credit cards, is low
Usage
bankwith
account
features, use
suchofasaccount
mobilefeatures
bankingappears
and credit
Amongof
those
bank accounts,
to becards,
low is low
Table 6: Access to bank account
Among
those
accounts,
use ofcards
account
features
to used
be low
(Table 6),
withwith
the bank
exception
of access
(debit
cards) appears
which are
by(Table 6), with the
features
exception of access cards (debit cards) which are used by the majority of account users
(79%). Ifamong
we lookbanked clients
the majority of account users (79%). If we look at the entire sample, 47% of
Percent
at
entire
sample,
of all
own higher
access cards.
is slightly
higher than in Product
other upperallthe
Fijians
own
access47%
cards.
ThisFijians
is slightly
than inThis
other
upper-middle
middle
income
countries
but
much
higher
than
average
access
card
ownership
in
lower-middle
income
income countries but much higher than average access card ownership in
Access cards
78.70%
countries
(Table
7). Moreover,
access
cards are these
used frequently:
35%
lower-middle
income
countriesthese
(Table
7). Moreover,
access cards
areof banked respondents with
Mobile banking
9.4%
used frequently:
35% of
respondents
cards
use
them
atmonth, and 5.7% use them
access
cards use them
at banked
least once
per month,with
31%access
use them
1-2
times
per
Internet
banking
8.10%
oncetimes
per month,
31% use them 1-2 times per month, and 5.7% use them
3least
or more
per month.
Table 6: Access to bank
3 or more times per month.
cardsamong
4.80%
accountCredit
features
Access to other account features is low, with mobile banking and
banked
clients
Cheques
2.50%
Access tobanking
other account
mobile
banking
and internet
internet
availablefeatures
to only is
9%low,
andwith
8% of
banked
respondents,
Product
Percent
banking available
to only
and 8%
of banked
78%
Wire transfer
1.40%
respectively.
78% last
used9%
mobile
banking
in therespondents,
30 days priorrespectively.
to the
Access cards
78.70%
last used
mobile
banking
in the 30
days prior
survey.
survey.
With
regards
to internet
banking,
58% to
of the
its users
hadWith
usedregards
it in toMobile banking
9.4%
internet banking, 58% of its users had used it in the past 30 days, and 18% had used it in the last
6 months. However, 16%
the past 30 days, and 18% had used it in the last 6 months. However,
Internet
banking
8.10%
had never actually used internet banking despite having access. Additional research on these users
can seek to understand
16% had never actually used internet banking despite having access.
Credit cards
4.80%
what types of payments or transfers bank clients are using these features for.
Additional research on these users can seek to understand what types of Cheques
2.50%
payments or transfers bank clients are using these features for.
Wire transfer
1.40%
Table 7: Benchmarking access to bank account features with Global Findex data
Lower-middle
income countries
(2014)
Fiji (2014)
Upper-middle
income countries
(2014)
Cheques used to make payments (total population)*
4.84%
1.5%
2.5%
Credit cards(total population)
3.7%
2.9%
16.8%
Debit cards (total population)
21.2%
47.2%
45.9%
Data from database: Global Findex (Global Financial Inclusion Database), last updated: 04/2015 *Indicator not included in
2014 Global FIndex
Fijians prefer cash for its convenience
Respondents with access to at least one of these features were asked about their preference for using cash versus electronic
money. The vast majority (88.8%) responded that they prefer to use cash for all payments. 72% of respondents answered
that they use cash (rather than electronic money) for its convenience, while others answered that they do so to avoid fees
(28.5%) and for ease of budgeting (27.9%).23 This implies that while electronic money is available, its value-add is not yet
clear even tO financially savvy Fijian adults.
23
Multiple answers were allowed.
20 | F i n a n c i a l
Services Demand Side Survey • Republic of Fiji
Spotlight on savings:
Savings culture is strong among Fijian adults,
whether banked or not
Table 8 indicates that the proportion of Fijians saving is high, even compared with Global Findex data on savings behavior
in comparable countries. 71.2% of respondents said that they had saved with any source in the past year, compared with
only 45.6% across Global Findex respondents in lower-middle income countries and 62.7% of respondents in other uppermiddle income countries.24 This is true of both formal and informal savings—nearly 38% of Fijians saved in a formal financial
institution during the past year, and 9% had used a savings club during this time.
Table 8: Saving in Fiji compared with Global Findex aggregate data
Lower-middle income
countries (2014)
Fiji
(2014)
45.6%
71.2%
Saved any money in the past year (self-reported)
Fiji Demand
Side Survey
Upper-middle
Page 32
income countries
(2014)
62.7%
Fijian
useinstitution
informal
savings
mechanisms
at similar
rates despite
income levels32.2%
Saved atadults
a financial
in the
past year
(bank,
14.8%
37.9%
union, or
MFI) had saved using any method than those in the bottom
While a higher percentage credit
of wealthy
adults
Saved using
a savings
club
in the pastwhen
year looking 12.4%
9% methods of saving
4.9% (Figure
income quintiles,
these
rates
converge
at rates across common
Data
database:
Global
Findex adults
(Global in
Financial
Inclusionincome
Database),
last updated:
04/2015
30).from
While
only 5%
of Fijian
the poorest
quintile
had used
savings clubs to save during
the
previous
year,
8%
of
those
in
the
wealthiest
quintile
had
done
so.
Further,
proportion of adults
Fijian adults use informal savings mechanisms at similar rates despite income the
levels
saving
at home
is fairly
similar adults
across
income
quintiles
(ranging
adults
in the
poorest
While
a higher
percentage
of wealthy
had
saved using
any method
than from
those 30%
in theof
bottom
income
quintiles,
these
quintile
to
36%
of
adults
in
the
wealthiest
quintile).
rates converge when looking at rates across common methods of saving (Figure 30). While only 5% of Fijian adults in the
poorest income quintile had used savings clubs to save during the previous year, 8% of those in the wealthiest quintile
This
suggests
thatthe
wealthier
may
be at
saving
banks
dueincome
to higher
access
to bank
had
done
so. Further,
proportionadults
of adults
saving
home more
is fairlyin
similar
across
quintiles
(ranging
from accounts.
30% of
adults
in
the
poorest
quintile
to
36%
of
adults
in
the
wealthiest
quintile).
Again, although many unbanked respondents say that they don’t have enough money to use banks,
This
suggests
that wealthier
adults may
be saving
banks due
to higher
access
to bank
accounts.it.Again,
although a
many
of these
respondents
clarified
thatmore
theyinspend
money
shortly
after
receiving
Still, roughly
many
unbanked
respondents
say
that
they
don’t
have
enough
money
to
use
banks,
many
of
these
respondents
third of respondents across income quintiles are saving at home. This suggests that having clarified
access to
that they spend money shortly after receiving it. Still, roughly a third of respondents across income quintiles are saving at
more
diverse
savings
products
which
can
meet
clients
in
between
traditional
bank
accounts
and saving
home. This suggests that having access to more diverse savings products which can meet clients in between traditional
bank
accounts
and saving atishome—which
is highlyand
proximate
easy to spend—can
better
meet
savingsneeds
needs of
at home—which
highly proximate
easy and
to spend—can
better
meet
thethe
savings
ofFijian
Fijian
adults.
adults.
Figure
30:30:
Percent
of adults
income group
Figure
Percent
of saving,
adultsbysaving,
by income group
100
75
80
60
60
84
88
63
40
30
20
5
10
11
12
30
33
33
36
8
0
Savings
Bottom 20%
Savings club to save
20-40%
40-60%
60-80%
Save home
Top 20%
Savings methods differ by inclusion strand
There
areGlobal
interesting
differences
inDashboard
the way
people
save across
inclusion
strands (Table 9). Nearly two
World Bank.
Financial Inclusion
Indicators: Regional
(Income
Group Comparisons).
2011. (accessed
7 April, 2015)
thirds (65%) of banked respondents said they have saved something over the past 12 months, compared
with only 27% of the “excluded” and 30% of the “informal only” segment.
24
nan
c i a l S e rinclusion
vices Dem
and Side
Table 9: Saving behaviorF i by
financial
category
S u r v e y • R e p u b l i c o f F i j I | 21
Other
Savings methods differ by inclusion strand
There are interesting differences in the way people save across inclusion strands (Table 9). Nearly two thirds (65%) of banked
respondents said they have saved something over the past 12 months, compared with only 27% of the “excluded” and 30%
of the “informal only” segment.
Table 9: Saving behavior by financial inclusion category
Excluded
(N=358)
Informal only
(N=103)
27%
30%
In the past 12 months, have you saved or put aside any
money, even a little?
Other formal
(N=54)
Banked
(N=772)
48%
Fiji Demand
Side65%
Survey
Page 33
Saving at home is common among all types of respondents and, as Figure 31 below shows, unbanked respondents are more
likely to use savings clubs and lend to friends or family than those in the banked or other formal inclusion strands.
Figure
31:
Non-bank
savings
by financial
inclusion category
Figure 31:
Non-bank
savings
by financial
inclusion category
60%
55%
50%
40%
30%
41%
40%
31%
28%
18%
20%
5%
10%
9% 8%
6% 7%
4%
4%
2%
0%
Banked (N=772)
Savings at home
Other formal (N=54)
Using a money guard
Informal only (N=103)
Savings club
0% 1%
Excluded (N=358)
Lending to friends and family
For unbanked
respondents
usingusing
only informal
savings mechanisms,
these savings could
significant
(Table
About
For
unbanked
respondents
only informal
savings mechanisms,
thesebesavings
could
be10).
significant
8% of respondents use savings clubs and have an average of FJD 355 saved (USD $174). Another 5% of respondents extend
(Table
10). About 8% of respondents use savings clubs and have an average of FJD 355 saved (USD
credit to friends and family. These respondents report an average FJD 486 (USD $238) in savings. Saving with credit unions,
$174).
Another
5% of and
respondents
extend
credit torare
friends
family. These
report
an
microfinance
institutions
in investments
was extremely
across and
the sample—less
thanrespondents
2% of respondents
saving
with
each.
Thus,
these
are
not
reported
in
the
table.
average FJD 486 (USD $238) in savings. Saving with credit unions, microfinance institutions and in
investments was extremely rare across the sample—less than 2% of respondents saving with each. Thus,
Table 10: Average savings balances across types of savings instruments25
these
are not reported in the table.
Number of
25
Savings vehicle
Average
value saved
95% confidence
interval
Table 10: Average
savings balances
across types
of savings
instruments
observations
Savings vehicleSavings club
Extending loans to friends and family
Saving
at home
Savings
club
Giving
someone loans
else money
to keep and
safe
Extending
to friends
(moneyguard)
family
Fiji National Provident Fund (FNPF) or
Saving at home
other superannuation
fund
Giving someone else money to
keep safe (moneyguard)
Fiji National Provident Fund (FNPF)
or other superannuation fund
25
Number of
106
observations
61
367
106
52
61
257
367
52
FJD
USD
Average value
355 saved 174
486
238
FJD
USD
118
58
355
174
238
167
82
486
118
13,252
58
6,496
167
82
13,252
6,496
FJD
USD
[138
FJD- 834]
[68USD
– 409]
95%
interval
[132 confidence
- 578]
[65
– 283]
[97--578]
139]
[132
[48 –– 68]
[65
283]
[87--834]
246]
[138
[43 -–121]
[68
409]
[10,114
-16,391]
[97 - 139]
[4,958 –
[48
– 68]
8,035]
[87 - 246]
[43 - 121]
[10,114 16,391]
[4,958 –
8,035]
Given the small number of respondents using credit unions, microfinance institutions and formal investment vehicles to save, these balances are not reported here. Further, all savings
balances should be interpreted along with the accompanying confidence intervals which provide an estimate of the sample mean. For example, if the Fiji DSS were conducted again
using the same sampling methodology, the average mean for each instrument would fall within the reported intervals 95% of the time.
22 | F i n a n c i a l
257
Services Demand Side Survey • Republic of Fiji
Like inclusion strands, savings behavior differs by ethnicity
Similar to differences in inclusion strands, fewer iTaukei adults reported saving (by any method) during
Fiji Demand Side Survey
Page 34
Fiji Demand Side Survey
Like inclusion strands, savings behavior differs by ethnicity
Page 34
Similar
to differences
in inclusion strands,
fewerhaving
iTaukei adults
reported
saving
(bypast
any method)
the 12 months prior
Figure
32: Percentage
of adults
saved
during
the
year,during
by ethnicity
to the survey (Figure 32). On the other hand, 77% of Indo-Fijians reported saving during the last year, and 90% of others.
100.0%
90%
Figure
32: Percentage
adults
having
past year, by ethnicity
Figure
32: Percentage
of adultsof
having
saved
during saved
the pastduring
year, by the
ethnicity
80.0%
100.0%
60.0%
80.0%
77%
71%
90%
77%
71%
40.0%
60.0%
20.0%
40.0%
0.0%
20.0%
iTaukei
Indo-Fijian
Other
iTaukei
Indo-Fijian
Other
0.0%
Long-term, FNPF savings are being used by salaried, urban adults
27% of Fijians
the FNPF
or another
funds
to save for retirement (Figure 33).
Long-term,
FNPFuse
savings
are being
used superannuation
by salaried, urban
adults
However,
a
higher
proportion
of
urban
respondents
(36%)
use
FNPF
compared
with rural
respondents
27%
of Fijians useFNPF
the FNPF
or another
funds
to save forurban
retirement
(Figure
33). However,
a higher
Long-term,
savings
aresuperannuation
being used by
salaried,
adults
proportion
of urban
respondents
(36%) useasFNPF
compared
rural respondents
(only
18%). This in
is not
surprising
asThe
(onlyof
18%).
This
is the
not FNPF
surprising
formal
wagewith
employment
is more
prevalent
urban
areas.
27%
Fijians
use
or another
superannuation
funds to
save
for
retirement
(Figure
33).
formal
wage
employment
is
more
prevalent
in
urban
areas.
The
majority
(70%)
of
respondents
earning
a
formal
salary
majority (70%)
of respondents
earning
formal salary (private
public)
reported
using
compared
However,
a higher
proportion
urban arespondents
use or
FNPF
compared
with
ruralFNPF,
respondents
(private
or public)
reported
using FNPF, of
compared
with only 12% of(36%)
respondents
with no
formal income
source.
with
only
12%
of
respondents
with
no
formal
income
source.
(only 18%). This is not surprising as formal wage employment is more prevalent in urban areas. The
Figure
33: Usage
ofof
FNPF
superannuation
funds
majority
(70%)
respondents
a formal salary
(private or public) reported using FNPF, compared
Figure
33:
Usage
oforFNPF
orearning
superannuation
funds
with only 12% of respondents with no formal income source.
40%
36%
Figure 33: Usage of FNPF or superannuation funds
35%
30%
40%
25%
35%
20%
30%
15%
25%
10%
20%
5%
15%
0%
10%
5%
27%
36%
18%
27%
18%
Overall
Urban (n=636)
Rural (n=647)
0%
In In
lineline
withwith
thesethese
findings,
usage ofusage
FNPF orofother
superannuation
funds also differsfunds
by income
(Figure
findings,
or other superannuation
alsolevel
differs
by34).
income level
Overall
UrbanFNPF
(n=636)
Rural (n=647)
(Figure 34).
In line with these findings, usage of FNPF or other superannuation funds also differs by income level
(Figure 34).
Figure 34: Usage of FNPF or superannuation fund by income quintile (percent)
Figure 34: Usage of FNPF or superannuation fund by income quintile (percent)
F i n a n c i a l S e r v i c e s D e m a n d S i d e S u r v e y • R e p u b l i c o f F i j I | 23
Fiji Demand Side Survey
Page 35
Fiji Demand Side Survey
Page 35
46
50
Figure 34: Usage of FNPF or superannuation fund by income quintile (percent)
40
35
50
30
40
20
30
10
20
0
10
46
24
19
11
35
24
19
11
Bottom 20%
20-40%
40-60%
60-80%
Top 20%
Bottom 20%
20-40%
40-60%
60-80%
Top 20%
0
Banked respondents reported higher levels of savings balances overall
Overall
savings balances
(including
in savings
all instruments)
the banked are significantly higher than
Banked
respondents
reported
highersavings
levels of
balancesofoverall
those
of the
unbanked
or previously
(Figure
Banked
respondents
had
anthose
average
Overall
savings
balances
(including
savings in all banked
instruments)
the35).
banked
are significantly
higher
than
of theFJD 6,728
Banked
respondents
reported
higher
levels ofofsavings
balances
overall
unbanked
or
previously
banked
(Figure
35).
Banked
respondents
had
an
average
FJD
6,728
(USD
3,298)
in
savings
compared
(USD 3,298) in savings compared with an average of FJD 373 (USD 183) among the previously
banked
savings
(including
savings
in allbanked
instruments)
of (USD
the banked
are
higher than
withOverall
an average
of FJDbalances
373 (USD 183)
among the
previously
and FJD 160
78) among
thesignificantly
unbanked. Savings
and
FJD
160
(USD
78)
among
the
unbanked.
Savings
balances
among
the
banked
are
likely
skewed
by
balances
banked areor
likely
skewed bybanked
FNPF savings,
however.
These differences
are due
to the
fact that being
thoseamong
of thethe
unbanked
previously
(Figure
35). Banked
respondents
had
an average
FJD 6,728
FNPF and
savings,
These
wealthier
havinghowever.
a bank account
are differences
correlated. are due to the fact that being wealthier and having a bank
(USD 3,298)
in savings
compared
with an average of FJD 373 (USD 183) among the previously banked
account are correlated.
and FJD 160 (USD 78) among the unbanked. Savings balances among the banked are likely skewed by
Figure 35: Average savings balances across the banked and unbanked respondents (FJD)
FNPF savings,
however.savings
These differences
are duethe
to the
fact that
being
wealthierrespondents
and having a bank
Figure
35: Average
balances across
banked
and
unbanked
(FJD)
account are correlated.
$8,000
6,728
$7,000 35: Average savings balances across the banked and unbanked respondents (FJD)
Figure
$6,000
$8,000
$5,000
$7,000
$4,000
$6,000
$3,000
$5,000
$2,000
$4,000
$1,000
$3,000
$0
$2,000
$1,000
6,728
373
160
Used to have a bank account,
373 have
but no longer
I have a bank account now
Never had a bank account
160
Used to have a bank account,
but no longer have
I have a bank account now
Never had a bank account
$0
Spotlight on credit: Fijians rely primarily on informal credit sources
Use of credit (both formal and informal) in Fiji is much lower than usage in comparable Global Findex
26
countries
(Table
One possible
is that theon
strong
culture ofcredit
giving and
providing
Spotlight
on11).
credit:
Fijiansexplanation
rely primarily
informal
sources
support to family members and community networks in Fiji reduces the need to rely on credit,
Use of credit (both formal and informal) in Fiji is much lower than usage in comparable Global Findex
particularly for emergencies.
countries (Table 11).26 One possible explanation is that the strong culture of giving and providing
support11:
to family
in Fiji reduces
the need
to rely
Table
Creditmembers
usage inand
Fijicommunity
comparednetworks
with aggregate
Global
Findex
dataon credit,
particularly for emergencies.
Lower-middle
Fiji
Upper-middle
Table 11: Credit usage in Fiji compared with aggregate Global Findex data
26
World Bank. Global Financial Inclusion Indicators: Regional Dashboard (Income Group Comparisons). 2011. (accessed 7 April,
Lower-middle
Fiji
Upper-middle
2015)
26
World Bank. Global Financial Inclusion Indicators: Regional Dashboard (Income Group Comparisons). 2011. (accessed 7 April,
2015)
24 | F i n a n c i a l
Services Demand Side Survey • Republic of Fiji
Spotlight on credit:
Fijians rely primarily on informal credit sources
Fiji Demand Side Survey
Page 36
Use of credit (both formal and informal) in Fiji is much lower than usage in comparable Global Findex countries (Table 11).26
One possible explanation is that the strong culture of giving and providing support to family members and community
networks in Fiji reduces the need to rely on credit, particularly for emergencies.
income countries
(2014)
Table 11: Credit usage in Fiji compared with aggregate
(2014) Global Findex data
Loan in the past year (from
47.4%
Lower-middle income
any source)
countries (2014)
Loan
from
a
financial
7.5%
Loan in the past year (from any source)
47.4%
institution
in
the
past
year
Loan from a financial institution in the past year
7.5%
income countries
(2014)
37.7%
Upper-middle
income
32%Fiji
(2014)
countries (2014)
6.9%
32%
10.4%
37.7%
6.9%
Data from database: Global Findex (Global Financial Inclusion Database), last updated: 04/2015
Data from database: Global Findex (Global Financial Inclusion Database), last updated: 04/2015
10.4%
Like savings, use of informal credit shows variation across inclusion strands (Figure 36). Respondents in
Like
use of borrowed
informal credit
shows
variation
inclusion
(Figure
36). Respondents
in all categories
allsavings,
categories
from
friends
andacross
family,
but astrands
greater
percentage
of respondents
in the
borrowed from friends and family, but a greater percentage of respondents in the “informal only” strand (17%) had done
“informal only” strand (17%) had done this in the past year. Those in the informal only strand used shop
this in the past year. Those in the informal only strand used shop credit much more (59%) than those in the banked (8%) or
credit
much
more
(59%) than those in the banked (8%) or other formal (18%) strands.
other
formal
(18%)
strands.
Figure 36: Non-bank sources of credit by financial inclusion category
Figure 36: Non-bank sources of credit by financial inclusion category
59%
60%
40%
20%
0%
7%
1%
8%
18%
14%11%
15%
2%
Banked (N=772)
6%
2%
Other formal (N=54)
Borrowing from friends and family
Shop credit
17%
4%
11%
Informal only (N=103)
6%
Excluded (N=358)
Borrowing from savings club
Borrow from MFI
Credit
unions
microfinance
do not
appear
be meeting
the credit
of adults
Fijian adults
Credit
unions
andand
microfinance
do not
appear
to betomeeting
the credit
needsneeds
of Fijian
Table
12 reports
the average
outstanding
credit balances
to different
sources
of credit, from
formal
banks,
Table
12 reports
the average
outstanding
credit
balances
to different
sources
of(commercial
credit, from
formal
finance
companies,
credit
unions,
and
MFIs)
to
informal
(hire
purchases,
friends
and
family,
and
so
on).
While
it
is
difficult
(commercial banks, finance companies, credit unions, and MFIs) to informal (hire purchases, friends and
to draw firm conclusions about credit sources which are not frequently used, it does appear that credit unions and MFIs
and so
it Fijian
is difficult
to draw
firm
creditwith
sources
which
are not
arefamily,
not meeting
theon).
creditWhile
needs of
adults based
on the
lowconclusions
percentage ofabout
respondents
such credit
outstanding.
frequently
used,areit borrowing
does appear
credit
unions
and
MFIsand
aretaking
not meeting
the purchase.
credit needs
of Fijian
Instead,
Fijian adults
from that
friends
and family,
shop
keepers,
goods on hire
Further
research
should
disentangle
the
reasons
for
this
behavior;
it
may
be,
for
example,
that
MFIs
and
credit
unions
do
not
adults based on the low percentage of respondents with such credit outstanding. Instead, Fijian adults
provide loans with sufficient flexibility or that they simply do not have the access points to be relevant.
are borrowing from friends and family, shop keepers, and taking goods on hire purchase. Further
research should disentangle the reasons for this behavior; it may be, for example, that MFIs and credit
unions do not provide loans with sufficient flexibility or that they simply do not have the access points to
be relevant.
26
Table 12: Average amount of credit outstanding , by credit source 27
World Bank. Global Financial Inclusion Indicators: Regional Dashboard (Income Group Comparisons). 2011. (accessed 7 April, 2015)
27
Only 4 respondents in the sample reported taking loans from savings groups, thus, those responses were not included here.
Further, all credit balances should be interpreted along with the accompanying confidence intervals which provide an estimate
Fin
n cFiji
i aDSS
l Swere
e r v conducted
ices Dem
a n dusing
S i dthe
e Ssame
u r vsampling
e y • R emethodology,
p u b l i c o ftheF iaverage
j I | 25
of the sample mean. For example,
if athe
again
amount outstanding for each type of credit would fall within the reported intervals 95% of the time.
Fiji Demand Side Survey
Page 37
Table 12: Average amount of credit outstanding, by credit source27
Credit source
Credit source
Commercial bank loan
Commercial bank loan
Loans from friends and family
Loans from friends and family
Moneylender credit
Moneylender credit
Credit union
Credit
union
Loan from microfinance
Loan from microfinance
institution
institution
Employer
loan
Employer
loan
Finance company credit
Finance company
credit
Hire purchase
Hire purchase
Layby
Layby
Shop
credit
Shop credit
Number of
Average
95% confidence intervals
Number of
outstanding
observationsAverageoutstanding
observations
FJD FJD
73
61
61
9
9
15
15 16
15,581
1,502
1,502
126
126
1,426
1,426697
73
15,581
16
697
10
22
22 124
124 12
12 84
10
1,295
1,295
19,207
19,207
881
881 564
564
84
40
40
95% confidence intervals
USDUSD
FJD
USD USD
7,638
[2,749 – 28,414] [1,348 – 13,928]
7,638
[2,749 – 28,414]
[1,348 – 13,928]
736
[-1,202 – 4,205]
[-589 - 2,061]
736
[-1,202 – 4,205]
[-589 - 2,061]
62
[37 – 214]
[18 - 105]
62
[37 – 214]
- 105]
699
[783 – 2,070] [18 [384
– 1,015]
699
[783[411
– 2,070]
[384
–
1,015]
– 984]
[411 – 984]
342
[201 - 482]
342
- 482]
635
[1,447 – 4,037] [201[709
– 1,979]
6359415 [1,447
–
4,037]
[709
–
1,979]
[5,513 – 32,901] [2,702 - 16,128]
9415432 [5,513
– 32,901]
16,128]
[730
– 1,032] [2,702 - [358
- 506]
432276
[730[219
– 1,032]
[358
506]
– 909]
[102 - 446]
276 20
[219 –[23
909]
[102 - 446]
– 57]
[11 - 28]
20
FJD
[23 – 57]
[11 - 28]
Credit behavior by ethnicity
Credit
behavior
by ethnicity
As with
the findings
related to ethnicity and inclusion strands and borrowing, borrowing behavior differs
As with
the
findings
related
to ethnicity
and inclusion
strands
and borrowing,
differs
by ethnicity
(Figure
by ethnicity (Figure 37).
A greater
proportion
of iTaukei
adultsborrowing
(37.2%) behavior
reported
borrowing
during
the
37). A greater proportion of iTaukei adults (37.2%) reported borrowing during the previous year than Indo-Fijian (24.5%) or
previous year than Indo-Fijian (24.5%) or others (31.3%).
others (31.3%).
Figure 37: Proportion of adults borrowing in the previous year, by ethnicity
Figure 37: Proportion of adults borrowing in the previous year, by ethnicity
40.0%
37.2%
35.0%
31.3%
30.0%
24.5%
25.0%
20.0%
15.0%
10.0%
5.0%
0.0%
iTaukei
Indo-Fijian
Other
Spotlight on mobile money: Despite high awareness, mobile money
usage is low
The Fiji DSS finds low levels of mobile money usage despite high levels of awareness. Nearly 76% of
Fijian adults own a mobile phone, and 41% of those who do not own a phone regularly use someone
else’s phone. Among these, 80% have heard of mobile money. Yet only 6.5% of Fijian adults have a
mobile money account.
27
Even among respondents who both have a SIM card and have heard of mobile money, less than 11%
Only 4 respondents in the sample reported taking loans from savings groups, thus, those responses were not included here. Further, all credit balances should be interpreted along with
the accompanying
confidence
intervals which
provide anA
estimate
of the
sampleMobile
mean. For example,
if the Fiji
DSS were conducted
using the same sampling
methodology,
the
have
a mobile
money
account.
2012
PFIP
Money
Attitudes
andagain
Perception
Omnibus
Survey
average amount outstanding for each type of credit would fall within the reported intervals 95% of the time.
26 | F i n a n c i a l
Services Demand Side Survey • Republic of Fiji
Spotlight on mobile money:
Despite high awareness, mobile money usage is low
The Fiji DSS finds low levels of mobile money usage despite high levels of awareness. Nearly 76% of Fijian adults own a
mobile phone, and 41% of those who do not own a phone regularly use someone else’s phone. Among these, 80% have
heard of mobile money. Yet only 6.5% of Fijian adults have a mobile money account.
Even among respondents who both have a SIM card and have heard of mobile money, less than 11% have a mobile money
account. A 2012 PFIP Mobile Money Attitudes and Perception Omnibus Survey found that among respondents aware of
mobile money, 8% were mobile money users, implying that mobile money usage has not increased since the time of the
previous survey.28
Table 13 below shows demographic characteristics of mobile money account holders.
Table 13: Demographics for mobile money account holders
% Male
43%
Average age
38
% Urban
63%
(N=85)
Due to the low number of respondents with mobile money accounts, statistically sound inferences about this segment are
not possible. Details in Table 18, Annex B.
28
Subramanian, Ramanathan. “Mobile Money Attitudes and Perception Omnibus Survey.” February, 2012. <http://www.pfip.org/resources/uploads/attachments/documents/Omnibus_
Survey_Findings.pdf>
F i n a n c i a l S e r v i c e s D e m a n d S i d e S u r v e y • R e p u b l i c o f F i j I | 27
% Male
Average age
% Urban
(N=85)
43%
38
63%
Due to the low number of respondents with mobile money accounts, statistically sound inferences
Spotlight
onareremittances:
about this segment
not possible. Details in Table 18, Annex B.
Spotlight on remittances: A third of urban females received remittances
A during
thirdthe
of last
urban
year females received remittances
About a quarter
oflast
survey respondents
(23%) said they receive money from acquaintances that live
during
the
year
either in Fiji or abroad. This percentage was largely the same among urban and rural respondents
(Figure
38).ofAsurvey
slightly
higher proportion
of urban
sent acquaintances
money in the
past
than
rural
About
a quarter
respondents
(23%) said they
receiveadults
money from
that
liveyear
either(13%)
in Fiji or
abroad.
Thisadults
percentage
(8%).was largely the same among urban and rural respondents (Figure 38). A slightly higher proportion of urban
adults sent money in the past year (13%) than rural adults (8%).
Figure 38: Proportion of adults that sent or received remittances during the previous
Figure
38:by
Proportion
of adults that sent or received remittances during the previous year, by location
year,
location
25.0%
Urban
24%
23%
Rural
20.0%
13%
15.0%
10.0%
8%
5.0%
0.0%
Send
Receive
However, when we analyze remittances sent and received by gender and location, sharp differences
However, when we analyze remittances sent and received by gender and location, sharp differences emerge (Figure 39). A
emerge (Figure 39). A higher percentage of women (28%) receive remittances than men (19%). When
higher percentage of women (28%) receive remittances than men (19%). When we analyze these patterns by location, the
we analyze
these
location,
become
moreinapparent.
30%
ofcompared
urban Side
Fijian
differences
become
morepatterns
apparent.by
30%
of urban the
Fijiandifferences
females received
remittances
the previous
yearDemand
with Survey
Fiji
16%females
of urban received
men. Whileremittances
a greater proportion
of
rural
men
received
remittances
(22%)
than
urban
men,
this
was
not
thePage 39
in the previous year compared with 16% of urban men. While a greater
caseproportion
for rural females.
A
slightly
lower
proportion
(25%)
of
rural
females
received
remittances
than
urban
females.
of rural men received remittances (22%) than urban men, this was not the case for rural
females. A slightly lower proportion (25%) of rural females received remittances than urban females.
Figure 39: Remittance patterns among urban and rural men and women
Figure 39: Remittance patterns among urban and rural men and women
35.0%
28
Subramanian, Ramanathan. “Mobile Money Attitudes and Perception Omnibus Survey.”
30% February, 2012.
<http://www.pfip.org/resources/uploads/attachments/documents/Omnibus_Survey_Findings.pdf>
30.0%
25%
25.0%
22%
20.0%
15.0%
10.0%
16%
14%
12%
9%
6%
5.0%
0.0%
Send
Receive
Men
Urban
Send
Rural
Receive
Female
Domestic remittances are significant and channeled through Post Fiji
Nearly all remittance beneficiaries receive money either from abroad or from elsewhere in Fiji, but not
both, as Figure 40 below shows. A higher proportion (73%) of urban remittance receivers have someone
sending them money from abroad than do rural remittance receivers (52%).
28Figure
| F i n a n40:
c i a Source
l S e r v i of
c e sremittances
D e m a n d S i damong
e S u r vthose
e y • Rreceiving
e p u b l i c oremittances
f Fiji
respondents
10.0%
9%
6%
5.0%
0.0%
Send
Receive
Men
Send
Urban
Receive
Female
Rural
Domestic remittances are significant and channeled through Post Fiji
Nearly all remittance beneficiaries receive money either from abroad or from elsewhere in Fiji, but not
Domestic
remittances
significant
andproportion
channeled(73%)
through
Post Fiji
both,
as Figure
40 beloware
shows.
A higher
of urban
remittance receivers have someone
Nearly allthem
remittance
beneficiaries
receivethan
money
abroad or receivers
from elsewhere
in Fiji, but not both, as Figure 40
sending
money
from abroad
doeither
ruralfrom
remittance
(52%).
below shows. A higher proportion (73%) of urban remittance receivers have someone sending them money from abroad
than do rural remittance receivers (52%).
Figure
40:Source
Source
of remittances
among
thoseremittances
receivingrespondents
remittances respondents
Figure 40:
of remittances
among those
receiving
Abroad
59%
3%
International remittances tend to be sent using different
payment mechanisms than domestic remittances: 72%
of remittances from abroad are received through a
remittance service such as Western Union, and 14%
are transferred directly to the receiver’s bank account
(Figure 41). Remittances from within Fiji are most
commonly received through the postal office (43%),
followed by cash sent though a relative or acquaintance
(31%), and transfer into the receiver’s bank account
(15%).
Fiji
38%
n=300
Fiji Demand Side Survey
Page 40
International remittances tend to be sent using different payment mechanisms than domestic
Figure 41: Mechanisms for receiving remittances
remittances: 72% of remittances from abroad are received through a remittance service such as
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
Western Union, and 14% are transferred directly to the receiver’s bank account (Figure 41). Remittances
from within Fiji are most
commonly received through
15%the postal office (43%), followed by cash sent
Own bank account
14%
though a relative or acquaintance (31%), and transfer into the receiver’s bank account (15%).
43%
Figure 41: Mechanisms Post
for Office
receiving remittances
4%
Mobile money
Western Union, etc.
Relative or acquaintance (by cash)
Relative or acquaintance (electronically)
1%
6%
72%
31%
6%
3%
3%
Less than 11% of respondents said they send remittances.
all ofabroad
those transfers are made within Fiji (96% of
From FijiNearlyFrom
remittance senders said they only send domestic remittances). Just like with remittance receivers, most remittance senders
(51%) said they use the post office, while another 17.3% sent money through their bank account (Figure 42).
Less than 11% of respondents said they send remittances. Nearly all of those transfers are made within
Fiji (96% of remittance senders said they only send domestic remittances). Just like with remittance
receivers, most remittance senders (51%) said they use the post office, while another 17.3% sent money
through their bank account (Figure 42).
Figure 42: Mechanisms for sending remittances
17%
Bank account
51%
Post Office
Mobile money account
Western Union, etc.
3%
4%
F i n a n c i a l S e r v i c e s D e m a n d S i d e S u r v e y • R e p u b l i c o f F i j I | 29
13%
Relative or acquaintance (cash)
Relative or acquaintance (electronically)
9%
Relative or acquaintance (electronically)
3%
3%
From Fiji
From abroad
Less than 11% of respondents said they send remittances. Nearly all of those transfers are made within
Fiji (96% of remittance senders said they only send domestic remittances). Just like with remittance
receivers, most remittance senders (51%) said they use the post office, while another 17.3% sent money
through their bank account (Figure 42).
Figure
42:Mechanisms
Mechanisms
for sending
remittances
Figure 42:
for sending
remittances
17%
Bank account
51%
Post Office
3%
Mobile money account
4%
Western Union, etc.
13%
Relative or acquaintance (cash)
9%
Relative or acquaintance (electronically)
2%
Internet banking
Within Fiji
2%
Other
Fiji Demand Side Survey
Page 41
Few Indo-Fijians utilize remittances compared with other groups
AsAswith
usage
of
credit,
fewer
Indo-Fijians
sent
or
received
money
during
the
previous
year
compared
with usage of credit, fewer Indo-Fijians sent or received money during the previous year compared with iTaukei and
with
and (Figure
other respondents
43).
Thisfact
may
partly due
tobrought
the fact
Indo-Fijians
otheriTaukei
respondents
43). This may be(Figure
partly due
to the
thatbe
Indo-Fijians
were
to that
Fiji several
decades were
before
and
have
likely
lost
ties
with
relatives
abroad,
but
it
may
also
be
partly
explained
by
the
fact
that
a
larger
brought
to
Fiji
several
decades
before
and
have
likely
lost
ties
with
relatives
abroad,
but
it
may
also be
the extended family and community which may explain higher rates of remittances amongproportion
iTaukei
of Indo-Fijians (56.7%) are located in urban areas compared with iTaukei (44.5%).29 Fijian culture also has a strong sense of
partly
explained by the fact that a larger proportion of Indo-Fijians (56.7%) are located in urban areas
adults.
reciprocity
and giving among the extended
family and community which may explain higher rates of remittances among
compared
with iTaukei (44.5%).29 Fijian culture also has a strong sense of reciprocity and giving among
iTaukei adults.
Although the survey did not ask other respondents to specify their ethnicity, information on the native
the survey did not ask other respondents to specify their ethnicity, information on the native languages of others
29Although
of others
indicates
many are Housing:
from other
Pacific Islands
or fromEthnicity
elsewhere
abroad, thus
Fijilanguages
Bureau
of many
Statistics.
“2007
Census
ofthat
Population
Population
Growth
and Geographic
indicates
that
are from
other
Pacific
Islands orand
from elsewhere
abroad, Size
thusand
these
adultsbyare
likely receiving
payments
http://www.statsfiji.gov.fj/index.php/2007-census-of-population>
Accessed
April
2015.
Sector.”
<
these
adults
are
likely
receiving
payments
from
abroad.
from abroad.
Few Indo-Fijians utilize remittances compared with other groups
Figure 43: Remittance patterns by ethnicity (percent)
Figure 43: Remittance patterns by ethnicity (percent)
50
40
Send money
39
27
30
20
Receive money
16
13
10
15
6
0
iTaukei
Indo-Fijian
Other
Spotlight on insurance: Use of insurance is minimal among the poor
Across the sample, only 12% of respondents have any type of insurance (Figure 36). This rate is higher
among urban respondents (17%) compared with rural respondents (7%) and substantially higher among
those in the top two income quintiles than among adults in the bottom three income quintiles (Figure
45). This finding suggests that Fijian adults may only be using insurance provided by employers.
29
Fiji Bureau of Statistics. “2007 Census of Population and Housing: Population Size and Growth by Ethnicity and Geographic Sector.” < http://www.statsfiji.gov.fj/index.php/2007census-of-population> Accessed April 2015.
Figure 44: Insurance ownership in Fiji
20%
30 | F i n a n c i a l
15%
17%
Services Demand Side Survey • Republic of Fiji
12%
27
30
20
16
13
10
15
6
0
iTaukei
Indo-Fijian
Other
Spotlight on insurance:
Spotlight on insurance: Use of insurance is minimal among the poor
Acrossof
the sample,
only 12% of respondents
have any type
of insurancethe
(Figurepoor
36). This rate is higher
Use
insurance
is minimal
among
among urban respondents (17%) compared with rural respondents (7%) and substantially higher among
those
the top
quintiles
among
adults (Figure
in the 36).
bottom
three
income
quintiles
Across
the in
sample,
onlytwo
12%income
of respondents
havethan
any type
of insurance
This rate
is higher
among
urban (Figure
respondents
(17%)
compared
with
rural
respondents
(7%)
and
substantially
higher
among
those
in
the
top
two
income
45). This finding suggests that Fijian adults may only be using insurance provided by employers.
quintiles than among adults in the bottom three income quintiles (Figure 45). This finding suggests that Fijian adults may
only be using insurance provided by employers.
Figure
44: Insurance
ownership
in Fiji
Figure
44: Insurance
ownership
in Fiji
20%
15%
17%
12%
10%
Fiji Demand Side Survey
Page 42
7%
5%
0%
30%
25%
Overall
29%
Rural (n=647)
Urban (n=636)
Fiji Demand Side Survey
Page 42
20%
15%
Figure 45: Insurance ownership across income quintiles
15%
Figure 45: Insurance ownership across income quintiles
Indeed, as with other
formal products, the rate of
6%
6%
insurance ownership is higher
3%
5%
25%
among employed (27%) than
unemployed Fijian adults (7%).
0%
20%
When asked why they don’t use
15%
Bottom 20%
20-40%
40-60%
60-80%
Top 20%
15%
insurance, 40% of respondents
said that they do not need
10% as with other formal products, the rate of insurance ownership is higher among employed (27%)
Indeed,
6%
it (Figure 46), while others
6%
3% Fijian adults (7%). When asked why they don’t use insurance,
responded
thatrespondents
the price is said
than5%unemployed
40% of
prohibitive
(30%),
or that
that0%
they do not need it (Figure 46), while others responded that the price is prohibitive (30%),
orthey
that
don’t know what it is (25%).
they don’t
know
what
it
is
(25%).
Among
those
that
claim
to
not
need
insurance,
it
is
likely
that
Bottom 20%
20-40%
40-60%
60-80%
Top 20%
Among those that claim to not
understanding of insurance is low. If expanding access to insurance is a priority
the RBF,it is
this
may
needof
insurance,
likely
thatbe a
understanding
of
insurance
is
low.
If
expanding
access
to
insurance
is
a
priority
of
the
RBF,
this
may
be
a
topic
to
include
in
topic
to
include
in
its
financial
education
efforts.
Indeed, as with other formal products, the rate of insurance ownership is higher among employed (27%)
its financial education efforts.
29%
10%
30%
than unemployed Fijian adults (7%). When asked why they don’t use insurance, 40% of respondents said
that they do not need it (Figure 46), while others responded that the price is prohibitive (30%), or that
Figure
Self-reported
forany
nottype
using
any type of insurance
Figure
46: 46:
Self-reported
reasons reasons
for not using
of insurance
they don’t know what it is (25%). Among those that claim to not need insurance, it is likely that
understanding of insurance is low. If expanding access to insurance is a priority of the RBF, this may be a
not need insurance
40%
topic to include inDoes
its financial
education efforts.
Insurance is too expensive
30%
Does not know what insurance is
25%
FigureDoes
46:notSelf-reported
reasons for not using any type of insurance
know where to get insurance
15%
Someone else in the household has insurance
Does
not need
insurance
Does not trust
insurance
companies
4%
40%
4%
is too company
expensive
Bad experienceInsurance
with insurance
1%
Does not know what insurance is
0%
5%
Does not know where to get insurance
Someone else in the household has insurance
30%
10%
15%
20%
15%
25%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
4%
Conclusion:
for future research
and policy action
Does notPriorities
trust insurance companies
4%
F i n provides
a company
ncial a
S ebenchmark
r v1%
i c e s D eon
m aaccess
n d S ito
d efinancial
S u r v e yservices—both
• R e p u b l i c formal
o f F i jand
I | 31
The FijiBad
Financial
Inclusion
DSS
experience
with insurance
informal—among Fijian adults.
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
Conclusion:
Priorities for future research and policy action
The Fiji Financial Inclusion DSS provides a benchmark on access to financial services—both formal and informal—among
Fijian adults.
Fiji has achieved a relatively high level of formal inclusion to date (60% of adults have an account with a formal financial
institution) compared with other Pacific Island countries in which comparable DSS surveys have been conducted and with
lower-middle income countries surveyed as part of the Global Findex. It appears that these adults are using their formal
products intensively. While Fiji’s formal inclusion level lags slightly behind that of other upper-middle income countries
(70.4%) included in the Global Findex, this is understandable given that Fiji was reclassified as such only in 2013.
However, the DSS highlights that electronic banking products and features have not demonstrated their full value-add to
banked Fijian adults. Banked respondents express a preference for cash rather than electronic money, such as credit cards or
mobile banking, suggesting that providers will have to continue to work to make electronic banking products relevant even
for Fijian adults that may be relatively financially savvy. Further, it has long been said that mobile money has great potential
in the Pacific Region because of large distances between islands. However, there is evidence to suggest that clients do not
see mobile money products as useful or relevant, as many people have heard of mobile money, but few are using it.
Despite a high level of inclusion, nearly a third (27%) of adults are completely excluded from any type of financial service.
Specifically, inclusion is lower:
• In the Eastern and Western Provinces;
• Among women;
• Among iTaukei adults;
• Among young adults (those aged 15-20); and
• And among agricultural or casual workers.
A large proportion of Fijian adults saved during the previous year (71%), compared with 28% and 35% of adults in lowermiddle and upper-middle income countries in the Global Findex survey. These levels are high across income quintiles as
well. Even among banked agricultural and casual workers, nearly half (49% and 47%) opened bank accounts to save. These
findings suggest a demand for more diverse savings products even among those that are currently financially excluded.
The Fiji DSS results also show that perceptions and actual barriers to using formal financial services do not appear to match.
Half of unbanked Fijian adults reported not having enough money, specifically spending money soon after it is received,
as the biggest barrier to accessing a bank account. This result suggests that not having money is likely not the immediate
barrier. Rather, unbanked Fijian adults may not have a precise understanding of the range of products available from
banks beyond long-term savings products. Similarly, although nearly all Fijian adults had at least one form of identification
required to open a bank account, 17% of unbanked respondents cited not having proper documents as a reason for not
having a bank account. Providing information about the minimal documentation required to open accounts and on financial
products that allow clients to cheaply and easily deposit and withdraw quickly could increase the level of inclusion among
the segments identified above.
Financial behaviors differ considerably by ethnicity, with iTaukei adults sending and receiving remittances and using
credit more than Indo-Fijian adults. Indo-Fijian adults, on the other hand, appear to be saving more than iTaukei adults.
Importantly the proportion of men with a bank account is 16 percentage points higher than the proportion of women
with an account. Policymakers may wish to prioritize understanding how they can promote financial inclusion to these
underserved groups. Given that nearly a third (30%) of urban women and 25% of rural women received remittances during
the previous year, it may be worth exploring how to channel these payments through formal accounts.
Use of credit is relatively low overall in Fiji, suggesting that this would be an interesting topic for future research. Cultural
factors unique to Fiji—such as a high degree of giving among families and communities—may be partly to explain. However,
the DSS suggests an untapped credit market might exist in Fiji with formal credit usage so low, although more research
would be needed to learn about this demand. The DSS results do suggest that existing non-bank formal credit providers,
such as MFIs and credit unions or cooperatives, are not currently meeting the credit needs of Fijian adults who rely on
family and friends, shopkeepers, or use hire purchase facilities to access loans.
Thus, future policy action can be focused on increasing the relevance and use of electronic money among formally included
adults and increasing knowledge about formal financial products and services among the excluded (27% of Fijian adults).
Small measures such as increasing information on the minimal documentation required to open bank accounts could go
a long way in reaching those segments that are currently excluded and unbanked. Further, given the high proportion of
Fijian adults that save despite income level, designing or marketing more appropriate savings products may be a means of
engaging financially excluded Fijians adults with formal services.
32 | F i n a n c i a l
Services Demand Side Survey • Republic of Fiji
Annex A: Financial inclusion indicators
PIRI Demand-side Indicators
ACCESS INDICATORS
Confidence inteval
3.4 % of adults with a mobile phone subscription
74.9%
[71.2%,78.4%]
$3.33 USD (FJD6.8)
USD [1.23, 5.74]
FJD [2.4,11.2]
ATM
$2.06
(FJD 4.2)
USD [1.03, 3.28]
FJD [2.0,6.4]
Bank agent
$2.25
(FJD 4.6)
USD [.51, 4.15]
FJD [1.0,8.1]
Mobile money agent
$1.52
(FJD 3.1)
USD
FJD [1.3,4.8]
Bank branch
46.2 min
[22.6, 69.8]
Bank branch
4.3. Average cost
of traveling to the
nearest access point
(public transit fee or
gas costs), converted
to USD
4.4. Average time
of traveling to the
nearest access point
in minutes
ATM
22.8 min
[14.5,31.2]
Bank agent
21.9 min
[15.2,28.7]
Mobile money agent
23.8 min
[11.2, 36.3]
54 minutes
[48, 60]
0.5%
[0.2%, 1.1%]
4.5. Average time waiting to be served when opening a
deposit account (in minutes)
4.7. Percentage of adults reporting that they do not
have all identification documents required to open a
basic account
USAGE INDICATORS
Confidence inteval
5.3. Percent of adults with at least one type of regulated
deposit accounts
60.2%
[55.5%, 64.7%]
5.4. Percent of adults with at least one type of regulated
credit account
9.4%
[7.8,11.2]
5.5. Percent of Adults with at least one regulated financial
product 64.2%
[58.4, 70.2]
5.6. Percent of people with an active deposit account–
have had any deposit or withdrawal in the last 90 days 51.9%
[47.3,56.5]
5.7. Percentage of adults earning below US $2 per day
who have a deposit account
39%
[32.3,46.0]
6.1. Percentage of adults with at least one active mobile
financial services product30
--
6.2. Percentage of adults who have sent money through
mobile financial services in the last 12 months for person
to person transfers and bill pay 1.4%
[0.8%, 2.5%]
6.3. Percent of adults who have received money
(including e-money) through mobile money in the last
12 months 2.1%
[1.4%, 3.2%]
7.1. Percent of adult women with an active deposit
account OR percent of deposit accounts held by women 43.7%
[38.6, 48.9]
30
The number of active mobile wallet users was so low as to be negligible.
F i n a n c i a l S e r v i c e s D e m a n d S i d e S u r v e y • R e p u b l i c o f F i j I | 33
GLOBAL FINDEX indicators – Fiji compared with lower-middle and upper-middle income countries
Benchmarking the Fiji Financial Inclusion Indicators
0 deposits in a typical month (% with account)
0 deposits/withdrawals in a typical month (% with account)
0 withdrawals in a typical month (% with account)
1-2 deposits in a typical month (% with account)
1-2 withdrawals in a typical month (% with account)
3+ deposits in a typical month (% with account)
3+ withdrawals in a typical month (% with account)
ATM is main mode of deposit (% with* account)
ATM is main mode of withdrawal (% with account)
Account at a formal financial institution (bank or credit union)
Account used for business purposes (total population)*
Account used to receive payments from government (total population)
Account used to receive remittances (total population)*
Account used to send remittances (total population)*
Account used to receive salary or wages (total population)
Bank teller is main mode of deposit (% with account)*
Bank teller is main mode of withdrawal (% with account)
Cheques used to make payments (total population)*
Credit cards(total population)
Debit cards (total population)
Retail store or agent is main mode of deposit (% with account)
Retail store or agent is main mode of withdrawal (% with account)
Mobile phone used to pay bills (total population)*
Mobile phone used to receive money (total population)*
Mobile phone used to send money (total population)*
Saved any money in the past year
Saved at a financial institution in the past year (bank, credit union, or MFI)
Saved for emergencies in the past year (total population)*
Saved for future expenses in the past year (total population)*
Saved using a savings club in the past year
Loan in the past year (from any source)
Loan from a financial institution in the past year
Loan from a private lender in the past year
Loan from an employer in the past year*
Loan from family or friends in past year
Loan through store credit in the past year*
Personally paid for health insurance (all respondents)*
57.2%
34.6%**
57.8%
32.4%
27.5%
8.8%
12.5%
3.85%
42.4
41.8%
4.14%
3.3%
3.73%
2.9%
5.6%
3.48%
45.8%
4.84%
3.7%
21.2%
1.7%
1.92%, 2.93%
1.89%
3.57%
2.27%
45.6%
14.8%
22.08%
19.81%
12.4%
47.4%
7.5%
8.5%
4.88%
33.1%
8.18%
5.15%*
57.2%
7.5%
13.7%
12.8%
63.9%31
56.3%32
27.3%
29.9%
2.8%
80.7%
60.2%
2.5%
7.3%
4.8%
0.6%
29.1%
80%
10.6%
1.5%
2.9%
47.2%
4.9%
3.6%
0%
2.3%
1.4%
71.2%
37.9%
31.2%
9.2%
9%
32%
6.9%
2.7%
1.2%
7.5%
10.4%
1.2%
7.5%
41.4%
11.3%**
44.3%
47.3%
37.9%
6.6%
13.6%
17.8%
55.7%
70.4%
4%
9.6%
8.4%
6.4%
18.1%
70.6%
39.1%
2.5%
16.8%
45.9%
1.2%
0.9%, 0.7%
1.7%
1.3%
1%
62.7%
32.2%
25.1%
22.9%
4.9%
37.7%
10.4%
2.6%
2%
24%
4.8%
32.9%*
41.4%
Data from database: Global Findex (Global Financial Inclusion Database), last updated: 04/2015
* Indicator included in 2011 Global Findex only.
** While the 2014 Global Findex indicators report 0 deposits or withdrawals in the past year, the Fiji indicator
reports 0 deposits or withdrawals in a typical month.
31 This includes deposits which are made infrequently or only a few times per year – 24.4% of banked respondents.
32 This includes withdrawals which are made infrequently (less than once per month) or a few times per year – 24.3% of respondents.
34 | F i n a n c i a l
Services Demand Side Survey • Republic of Fiji
GPFI indicators
GPFI Indicators
Average
95% CI
Formally banked adults: % of adults with an account at a formal financial
institution
60.2%
[55.5%,64.7%]
Adults with credit from regulated institutions (bank and credit union only)
6.9%
[5.6%,8.6%]
Adults with credit from regulated institutions (bank, credit union, finance
company, or MFI)
9.4%
[7.8,11.2]
Mobile transactional use
-
-
High frequency account usage
23.8%
[20.4%,27.6%]
Adults with insurance
12%
[10.0,14.4]
Saved at a financial institution in the past year (bank, credit union, MFI)
37.9%
[33.7,42.2]
Remittances
23.3%
[20.6%,26.2%]
F i n a n c i a l S e r v i c e s D e m a n d S i d e S u r v e y • R e p u b l i c o f F i j I | 35
Annex B: Analysis of inclusion using the Progress
out of Poverty Index (PPI)
While analysis of poverty at the USD $2 per day income line is included in the main body of the report, poverty rates
are notoriously difficult to capture using income alone. This is especially true in countries, such as Fiji, in which a high
percentage of the population relies on home production.
The Grameen Foundation Simple Poverty ScorecardTM (also known as the Progress out of Poverty Index® or PPI) is an
analytical tool that estimates the likelihood that respondent households are poor based on known correlations between
indicators and poverty without asking about consumption in detail. In the case of Fiji, the PPI uses information from
the 2008/9 Household Income and Expenditure Survey to estimate the likelihood that a household in Fiji earns income
or consumes below a given poverty line. The Simple Poverty ScorecardTM provides a quick and easy way to collect 10
household indicators which are then used to determine the likelihood of poverty.33
To analyze the PPI scores, we grouped households into 3 segments based on their likelihood of earning or consuming below
the national poverty line.34 These segments are as follows:
Poverty likelihood segment
Likelihood of consuming below the national poverty line
Low poverty likelihood
Households with a likelihood score of less than 25%.
Medium poverty likelihood
Households with a likelihood score greater than or equal to 25% and less than 75%.
High poverty likelihood
Households with a poverty likelihood estimate of 75% or greater Fiji
wereDemand
classified Side
as Survey
Page 50
highly likely to be poor.
Figure 47: Financial inclusion strand by poverty likelihood segment (using the National Poverty Line)
Low poverty likelihood
70%
Medium poverty likelihood
3% 5%
47%
High poverty likelihood
31%
0%
10%
Banked
20%
5%
8%
30%
Other formal
15%
34%
17%
40%
50%
Informal only
22%
45%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Exluded
As demonstrated in Figure 47, 45% of households with a high poverty likelihood are excluded from any type of financial
As demonstrated in Figure 47, 45% of households with a high poverty likelihood are excluded from any
service, formal or informal, and only 31% are estimated to have a formal bank account.
type of financial service, formal or informal, and only 31% are estimated to have a formal bank account.
The Fiji national poverty line is defined as the cost of basic-needs food and non-food consumption, designed to reflect
35
nutritional
and consumption
habits inas
Fiji.
Compared
with the USD $2
perand
day international
poverty line
The Fijirequirements
national poverty
line is defined
the
cost of basic-needs
food
non-food consumption,
which is utilized earlier in the report, the national poverty line is likely a more accurate reflection
35 of poverty in the Fijian
designed to reflect nutritional requirements and consumption habits in Fiji. Compared with the USD $2
context. In addition, the national poverty line has a higher threshold than the USD $2 per day line, which comes to roughly
international
poverty
line which
utilized
theequivalent
report, the
national
line is likely
FJD per
4.21 day
per adult
equivalent per
day compared
withisthe
nationalearlier
povertyin
line’s
of FJD
6.59 perpoverty
day in urban
areas.
Thus, while
the national
poverty
line estimates
areFijian
more likely
to provide
an accurate
inclusion line
among
a more
accurate
reflection
of poverty
in the
context.
In addition,
thereflection
nationalofpoverty
has a
poor Fijians, the USD $2 per day line will be more helpful in making regional or international cross-country comparisons.
higher threshold than the USD $2 per day line, which comes to roughly FJD 4.21 per adult equivalent per
Given
thecompared
higher poverty
threshold
definedpoverty
by the Fijiline’s
national
poverty line,
all indicators
appears
day
with
the national
equivalent
of inclusion
FJD 6.59across
per day
in urban
areas.slightly
Thus, while
worse than when utilizing the international USD $2 per day poverty line alone. For example, compared with the 31%
the
national
poverty
line
estimates
are
more
likely
to
provide
an
accurate
reflection
of
inclusion
among
of formally included households with a high poverty likelihood according to the national poverty line, a slightly higher
poor Fijians,
USD $2 are
perincluded
day line
willutilizing
be more
in making
percentage
(39%) ofthe
households
when
the helpful
USD $2 per
day line. regional or international cross33
country comparisons.
Due to the difficulty of asking one question, only 9 of the indicators were picked up in the DSS. Thus, Microfinance Risk Management, L.L.C. adapted the poverty likelihood estimates
specifically for the DSS. The updated table and lookup scores are included below.
34 The national poverty line includes food and non-food expenditure and was FJD 6.59 (USD $3.23) in urban areas, and FJD 5.83 (USD $2.86) in rural areas. See: Fiji Islands Bureau of
Statistics. “Preliminary Report: Poverty and Household Incomes in Fiji in 2008-09.” Suva, Fiji: 2010.
35 Schreiner, Mark. “A Simple Poverty Scorecard for Fiji.” 25 June 2014. <http://www.microfinance.com/English/Papers /Scoring_Poverty_Fiji_2008_EN.pdf>
Given the higher poverty threshold defined by the Fiji national poverty line, inclusion across all
indicators appears slightly worse than when utilizing the international USD $2 per day poverty line
alone. For example, compared with the 31% of formally included households with a high poverty
likelihood according to the national poverty line, a slightly higher percentage (39%) of households are
when utilizing the USD $2 per day line.
36 |included
Financial Services Demand Side Survey • Republic of Fiji
On the other hand, only 22% of households with a low poverty likelihood are excluded from financial
services, and 70% are expected to be banked. Households with a high or medium poverty likelihood are
On the other hand, only 22% of households with a low poverty likelihood are excluded from financial services, and 70%
are expected to be banked. Households with a high or medium poverty likelihood are more likely to use informal or other
formal services only than those with a low poverty likelihood.
Fiji Demand Side Survey
A comparison of inclusion indicators by poverty likelihood and whether a household falls below the USD $2 per day line is
Page 51
provided in Figure 48 below.
Figure 48: Remittances sent, remittances received, and insurance by poverty classification
30%
25%
23%
25%
20%
17%
16%
13%
15%
8%
10%
5%
23%
21%
3%
3%
12%
10%
5%
5%
2%
0%
Below $2 per day
Low poverty likelihood
Send remittances
Medium poverty
High poverty likelihood
likelihood
Receives remittances
Insurance
Total population
The PPI classification of households at the national poverty line appears to be more sensitive in detecting differences in
The
PPIinclusion
classification
of households
attothe
national
poverty
appears
to be
morehouseholds
sensitive identified
in
formal
for indicators
which appear
be fairly
constant
acrossline
income
levels. For
example,
36
as
having
a
high
poverty
likelihood
according
to
the
national
poverty
line
are
slightly
less
likely
to
receive
remittances
than
detecting differences in formal inclusion for indicators which appear to be fairly constant across income
other households, although this difference is not detected when utilizing the USD $2 per day line alone.
levels. For example, households identified as having a high poverty likelihood according to the national
On the other
both theless
USDlikely
$2 perto
dayreceive
line andremittances
the PPI poverty36likelihood
classifications
associated
with the
national
poverty
line hand,
are slightly
than other
households,
although
this
poverty line detect lower insurance penetration and a lower likelihood to send remittances among poor households. This is
difference
not
detected
utilizing
thepatterns
USD $2byper
day level,
line alone.
likely due toisthe
sharp
disparitywhen
in access
or sending
income
which are detected despite which poverty line
is used.
On the other hand, both the USD $2 per day line and the PPI poverty likelihood classifications associated
In the case of saving at home, which appears to be relatively constant despite likelihood of earning below the poverty
with
the national poverty line detect lower insurance penetration and a lower likelihood to send
line (Figure 49), there is no significant difference in the percentage of households that save at home regardless of poverty
remittances
among
poor
households.
This is
likely due
to of
thesavings
sharpclubs
disparity
inthe
access
orpopulation
sending and
line used. However,
while
no significant
difference
is detected
in use
between
general
those earning
below USD
$2 per
day, we
see a slightly
significant
difference
between
households with a high or
patterns
by income
level,
which
aredodetected
despite
which
poverty
line isthose
used.
Fiji Demand Side Survey
intermediate poverty likelihood than those with a low poverty likelihood using the national poverty line.37
Page 52
In the case of saving at home, which appears to be relatively constant despite likelihood of earning
Figurethe
49: poverty
Usage of line
saving
instruments
by poverty
likelihood difference in the percentage of households
below
(Figure
49), there
is no significant
that save at home regardless of poverty line used. However, while no significant difference is detected
33%
32%
32%
32%
in35%
use of savings
clubs between28%
the general population and those earning below USD $2 per day, we do
30%
see
a slightly significant difference between those households with a high or intermediate poverty
25%
likelihood than those with a low poverty likelihood using the national poverty line.37
20%
15%
Figure
49: Usage of saving instruments
by poverty
12%likelihood
11%
10%
8%
9%
8%
5%
0%
Below $2 day
High poverty likelihood Intermediate poverty Low poverty likelihood
likelihood
Saving at home
36
Overall population
Savings club to save
T- test of equality of proportions of high poverty households receiving remittances versus intermediate or low poverty households: t= 1.7519, p= 0.0800, df=1285
Thus,
theof proportions
PPI measures
poverty
appear poverty
slightly
more
in terms
of likelihood.
detecting
37 T-test
of householdsof
using
savings club likelihoods
identified as high or intermediate
likelihood
versussensitive
households classified
as low poverty
T= t = -2.1513,
df=1285, p 0.0316
significant differences in financial access in cases in which indicators appear relatively constant across
sub-segments.
Figure 50 below illustrates the distribution of households throughout the sample, according to their PPI
F i n a n c i a l S e r v i c e s D e m a n d S i d e S u r v e y • R e p u b l i c o f F i j I | 37
36
poverty
classifications.
The sample
contained
higher proportion
of households
which
were
T- test oflikelihood
equality of proportions
of high poverty
households
receivingaremittances
versus intermediate
or low poverty
households:
t= 1.7519, p=
0.0800,
df=1285
classified
as
having
a
low
poverty
likelihood
as
evidenced
by
the
concentration
of
households
clustered
37
T-test of proportions of households using savings club identified as high or intermediate poverty likelihood versus households
likelihood
Saving at home
Savings club to save
Thus, the PPI measures of poverty likelihoods appear slightly more sensitive in terms of detecting
significant differences in financial access in cases in which indicators appear relatively constant across
sub-segments.
Figure 50 below illustrates the distribution of households throughout the sample, according to their PPI
poverty likelihood classifications. The sample contained a higher proportion of households which were
classified as having a low poverty likelihood as evidenced by the concentration of households clustered
Thus,
the PPIthe
measures
of poverty
likelihoods
appear
sensitive
in termsfew
of detecting
significant
differences
in as
between
poverty
likelihood
of 0 and
20 slightly
on themore
y axis.
Relatively
households
were
classified
financial access in cases in which indicators appear relatively constant across sub-segments.
having a high poverty likelihood (those sitting at 75 or higher on the y axis).
Figure 50 below illustrates the distribution of households throughout the sample, according to their PPI poverty likelihood
classifications. The sample contained a higher proportion of households which were classified as having a low poverty
likelihood as evidenced by the concentration of households clustered between the poverty likelihood of 0 and 20 on the
y axis. Relatively few households were classified as having a high poverty likelihood (those sitting at 75 or higher on the y
axis).
Figure 50: Sample distribution of likelihood of being below the national poverty line
0
100
Frequency
200
300
Figure 50: Sample distribution of likelihood of being below the national poverty line
0
20
40
60
80
Likelyhood of being below national poverty line
100
PPI Acknowledgements
The original Simple Poverty ScorecardTM for Fiji was was coordinated and funded jointly by Good Return, South Pacific
Business Development Microfinance (Fiji) Ltd., and the Government of Australia through its Market Development Facility.
Data are from the Fiji Islands Bureau of Statistics. Thanks go to Muhammad Awais Butt, James Le Compte, Elrico Munoz,
Wadan Narsey, Toga Raikoti, Olivia Vakaloloma, and Epeli Wagavonovono. Field testing was done by Uzayr Jeenah, Matthew
Lee, Masha Tarasyuk, and Samuel Wollner from the Columbia Business School. The user review and the campaign for the
use of the poverty scorecard in Fiji was supported by the secretariat (Tevita Gade and Duri Buadromo) of the Microfinance
Working Group of the National Financial Inclusion Taskforce (chaired by Robin Yarrow) and by Barry Whiteside, governor of
the Reserve Bank of Fiji. The Simple Poverty ScorecardTM is the same as what Grameen Foundation calls the Progress out of
Poverty Index®. The Simple Poverty Scorecard TM was revised by Mark Schreiner of Microfinance Risk Management, L.L.C. for
use with the Fiji Financial Inclusion DSS. The PPI® is a performance-management tool that Grameen Foundation promotes to
help organizations achieve their social objectives more effectively.
38 | F i n a n c i a l
Services Demand Side Survey • Republic of Fiji
Annex C: Detailed results
Table 14: Bank account types and motivation for opening account
Does anyone in your household apart from you currently have any type of account with
a bank?
95% CI
Yes (n=938)
73.1%
[68.8%,77.0%]
No (n=336)
26.2%
[22.3%,30.5%]
N=1,284
Have you, personally, ever had any type of account with a bank?
95% CI
Used to have, but no longer have (n=152)
11.7%
[9.6%,14.2%]
I have this now (n=772)
60.2%
[55.5%,64.7%]
Never had (n=359)
28%
[24.2%,32.3%]
N=1,284
Bank account holders
How many bank accounts do you have?
95% CI
1 (n=618)
79.2%
[75.2%,82.7%]
2 (n=133)
18%
[15.1%,21.4%]
3 (n=16)
2.3%
[1.2%,4.2%]
N=771
In which bank is your account? (account 1)
95% CI
WestPac (n=234)
30.9%
[27.8%,34.2%]
ANZ (n=178)
22.9%
[19.5%,26.6%]
BSP (n=283)
35.5%
[31.7%,39.4%]
BOB (n=56)
7.7%
[5.7%,10.2%]
Bred Bank (n=15)
2.4%
[1.3%,4.3%]
N=771
What type of account is this? (account 1)
95% CI
Basic or access account (n=346)
44.1%
[38.4%,49.9%]
Cheque account (n=7)
0.9%
[0.3%,2.4%]
Savings account (n=405)
53.3%
[47.4%,59.2%]
Fixed deposit or programmed account (n=3)
0.4%
[0.1%,1.3%]
Other (n=7)
1%
[0.5%,2.1%]
N=771
95% CI
Has at least one bank 0 account (banked respondents, all accounts)
Yes (n=479)
62.9%
[57.0%,68.4%]
No (n=294)
37.1%
[31.6%,43.0%]
N=773
95% CI
Has at least one basic or access bank account - for banked respondents, all accounts
Yes (n=368)
47%
[41.4%,52.6%]
No (n=406)
53%
[47.4%,58.6%]
N=773
F i n a n c i a l S e r v i c e s D e m a n d S i d e S u r v e y • R e p u b l i c o f F i j I | 39
What is the main reason that you opened this account?
95% CI
To receive a payment (salary, remittances, other) (n=362)
46.2%
[41.7%,50.7%]
To keep my money safe (n=82)
10.2%
[7.8%,13.3%]
To receive government benefits (n=48)
6.1%
[4.4%,8.4%]
To get a loan (n=6)
0.8%
[0.4%,1.8%]
To save (n=241)
32.5%
[27.7%,37.6%]
Other (n=32)
4.2%
[3.0%,6.0%]
N=771
In the past 12 months, have you used your account(s) for the following (all accounts):
95% CI
To receive money or payments for work or for selling goods directly into your account
(n=381)
48.5%
[44.3%,52.8%]
To receive money or payments from the government (n=94)
12.1%
[9.7%,15.1%]
To receive money from family members living elsewhere directly into this account (n=62)
8%
[6.0%,10.6%]
To send money to family members living elsewhere using the account (n=8)
1%
[0.4%,2.3%]
To save money (n=271)
36%
[28.7%,44.1%]
N=771
In which year did you open this account? (account 1)
1990 or earlier (n=54)
7%
1991-2000 (n=106)
13.8%
2001-2010 (n=286)
37.1%
2011 (n=62)
8.2%
[6.4%,10.4%]
2012 (n=58)
7.3%
[5.6%,9.6%]
2013 (n=113)
14.9%
[12.2%,18.0%]
2014 (n=93)
11.7%
[9.0%,15.1%]
N=771
40 | F i n a n c i a l
Services Demand Side Survey • Republic of Fiji
Table 15: Documentation
Do you currently have a birth certificate?
Yes (n=1,247)
95% CI
97% [95.2%,98.2%]
No (n=37)
3% [1.8%,4.8%]
N=1,284
7.2 Do you currently have a valid photo ID?
Yes (n=1,225)
95% CI
95.4% [93.8%,96.6%]
No (n=58)
4.5% [3.3%,6.1%]
N=1,284
Do you currently have a TIN letter or card?
95% CI
Yes (n=1,120)
87.1% [83.3%,90.2%]
No (n=163)
12.8% [9.8%,16.7%]
N=1,284
Where did you open this account? (account 1)
95% CI
Bank branch (n=711)
92.3% [89.4%,94.4%]
Rural banking (n=15)
1.7% [0.9%,3.4%]
School banking (n=20)
2.6% [1.7%,4.0%]
Agent came to me (n=17)
2.3% [1.3%,4.2%]
Other (n=8)
1.1% [0.5%,2.5%]
N=771
Was a minimum balance required to open the account? (account 1)
95% CI
Yes (n=668)
86.6% [82.6%,89.8%]
No (n=89)
11.5% [8.7%,15.1%]
N=771
F i n a n c i a l S e r v i c e s D e m a n d S i d e S u r v e y • R e p u b l i c o f F i j I | 41
Table 16: Constraints to access
Mean
Distance to bank branch (km)
Cost to bank branch (FJD)
Time to bank branch (min)
Distance to ATM (km)
Cost to ATM (FJD)
Time to ATM (min)
Distance to bank agent (km)
Cost to bank agent (FJD)
Time to bank agent (min)
Distance to mobile money agent (km)
Cost to bank mobile money agent (FJD)
Time to mobile money agent (min)
42 | F i n a n c i a l
95% CI
Urban (n=578)
3.3 km [2.1,4.5]
Rural (n=498)
27.1 km [12.6,41.6]
Overall (N=1,076)
13.9 km [6.9,20.9]
Urban (n=628)
FJ$ 3.2 [1.2,5.2]
Rural (n=628)
FJ$ 9.5 [2.1,17.0]
Overall (N=1,256)
FJ$ 6.8 [2.4,11.2]
Urban (n=625)
17.1 min [10.9,23.3]
Rural (n=623)
76.7 min [30.7,122.8]
Overall (N=1,248)
46.2 min [22.6,69.8]
Urban (n=582)
2.8 km [1.1,2.9]
Rural (n=504)
24.9 km [6.3,12.2]
Total (n=1,086)
12.7 km [3.2,6.6]
Urban (n=635)
FJD 3.5 [0.7,6.3]
Rural (n=628)
FJD 4.7 [1.5,7.9]
Overall (N=1,263)
FJD 4.2 [2.0,6.4]
Urban (n=630)
12.1 min [8.1,16.0]
Rural (n=623)
38.4 min [20.3,56.5]
Overall (N=1,253)
22.8 min [14.5,31.2]
Urban (n=539)
2.2 km [1.0,1.8]
Rural (n=502)
13.6 km [6.6,12.7]
Total (n=1,041)
7.5 km [3.6,7.5]
Urban (n=634)
FJ$ 1.4 [1.0,1.8]
Rural (n=644)
FJ$ 6.3 [0.8,11.8]
Overall (N=1,278)
FJ$ 4.6 [1.0,8.1]
Urban (n=624)
9.7 min [7.8,11.6]
Rural (n=643)
32.7 min [21.5,43.8]
Overall (N=1,267)
21.9 min [15.2,28.7]
Urban (n=422)
2.2 km [0.9,1.8]
Rural (n=440)
17 km [5.0,10.3]
Total (n=862)
9.5 km [2.9,6.0]
Urban (n=629)
FJ$ 0.9 [0.5,1.2]
Rural (n=618)
FJ$ 5.1 [2.0,8.2]
Overall (N=1,247)
FJ$ 3.1 [1.3,4.8]
Urban (n=545)
10.1 min [7.7,12.4]
Rural (n=592)
37.6 min [13.2,62.0]
Overall (N=1,137)
23.8 min [11.2,36.3]
Services Demand Side Survey • Republic of Fiji
Table 17: Account usage
Do you use your account(s) for personal transactions, business purposes, or both?
%
95% CI
Personal transactions (n=739)
95.7%
[93.7%,97.1%]
Business purposes (n=5)
0.6%
[0.2%,1.7%]
Personal and business transactions (n=25)
3.5%
[2.2%,5.5%]
N=771
In the past 12 months, have you used your account(s) for the following:
95% CI
To receive money or payments for work or for selling goods directly into your account
(n=381)
48.5%
[44.3%,52.8%]
To receive money or payments from the government (n=94)
12.1%
[9.7%,15.1%]
To receive money from family members living elsewhere directly into this account (n=62)
8%
[6.0%,10.6%]
To send money to family members living elsewhere using the account (n=8)
1%
[0.4%,2.3%]
To save money (n=271)
36%
[28.7%,44.1%]
To save money (n=458) –alternative question 7.27
60.8%
[56.0%,65.5%]
In the past 12 months, have you borrowed money from any of these banks?
%
95% CI
Yes (n=83)
10.4%
[8.4%,12.8%]
N=771
N=771
When was the last time you, yourself, made a DEPOSIT into this account? (account 1)
95% CI
Don’t know (n=14)
1.7%
[1.0%,2.9%]
Never (n=264)
34.7%
[30.8%,38.8%]
In the past 30 days (n=264)
33.3%
[29.4%,37.5%]
In the past 90 days (n=51)
6.7%
[4.9%,9.0%]
3 to 6 months ago (n=68)
9%
[7.0%,11.6%]
6 to 12 months ago (n=41)
5.6%
[3.8%,8.0%]
Over a year ago (n=67)
8.8%
[6.8%,11.3%]
Total (n=771)
When was the last time someone else made a DEPOSIT into this account (including the
government, an employer)? (account 1)
95% CI
Don’t know (n=9)
1%
[0.5%,2.1%]
Never (n=251)
32.9%
[28.7%,37.5%]
In the past 30 days (month) (n=400)
51.6%
[47.2%,55.9%]
In the past 90 days (3 months) (n=30)
4.3%
[2.9%,6.5%]
3 to 6 months ago (n=36)
4.8%
[3.5%,6.5%]
6 to 12 months ago (n=12)
1.4%
[0.7%,2.6%]
Over a year ago (n=33)
4%
[2.9%,5.5%]
Total (n=771)
F i n a n c i a l S e r v i c e s D e m a n d S i d e S u r v e y • R e p u b l i c o f F i j I | 43
In a typical month, how many times is money deposited into this account (by
95% CI
Don’t know (n=9)
1.1%
[0.6%,2.2%]
0 (n=58)
7.5%
[5.6%,10.0%]
Less than once per month (n=185)
24.4%
[20.7%,28.5%]
1-2 times (n=310)
39.5%
[35.6%,43.6%]
3-5 times (n=205)
27%
[23.0%,31.4%]
6 times or more (n=3)
0.3%
[0.1%,1.1%]
Total (n=771)
When was the last time you or someone else made a WITHDRAWAL from this account
95% CI
Don’t know (n=4)
0.4%
[0.2%,1.2%]
Never (n=128)
16.1%
[13.0%,19.8%]
In the past 30 days (month) (n=485)
62.2%
[57.9%,66.2%]
In the past 90 days (3 months) (n=36)
5.4%
[3.6%,8.1%]
3 to 6 months ago (n=63)
8.7%
[6.8%,11.0%]
6 to 12 months ago (n=22)
2.9%
[1.8%,4.8%]
Over a year ago (n=32)
4.2%
[2.9%,6.0%]
Total (n=771)
In a typical month, how many times is money withdrawn from this account (by
95% CI
Don’t know (n=7)
0.8%
[0.3%,1.9%]
0 (n=100)
12.8%
[10.5%,15.5%]
Less than once per month (n=172)
23.3%
[20.0%,27.0%]
1-2 times (n=260)
33%
[29.1%,37.2%]
3-5 times (n=198)
25.7%
[21.6%,30.2%]
6 times or more (n=33)
4.2%
[2.7%,6.5%]
Total (n=771)
Table 18 : Mobile money
Do you, yourself, have a mobile phone?
95% CI
Yes (n=974)
75.8%
[71.9%,79.3%]
No (n=309)
24.1%
[20.7%,28.0%]
Total (n=1,284)
Do you regularly use another person’s mobile phone?
95% CI
Yes (n=129)
40.6%
[33.8%,47.9%]
No (n=190)
59.4%
[52.1%,66.2%]
Total (n=319)
How many active SIM cards do you have?
95% CI
1 (n=811)
83.1%
[80.4%,85.5%]
2 (n=149)
16.2%
[13.8%,18.9%]
3 (n=6)
0.6%
[0.2%,1.3%]
4 (n=1)
0.1%
[0.0%,0.9%]
Total (n=967)
44 | F i n a n c i a l
Services Demand Side Survey • Republic of Fiji
How often do you use a phone to send text messages?
95% CI
Once an hour or more (n=15)
1.5%
[0.8%,2.5%]
A few times a day (n=138)
13%
[10.4%,16.2%]
A few times a week (n=190)
16.5%
[13.6%,19.9%]
About once a week (n=95)
8.5%
[6.7%,10.8%]
Once a month or less (n=56)
5%
[3.8%,6.5%]
Very rarely (n=377)
35.2%
[30.9%,39.7%]
Never (n=225)
20.4%
[17.5%,23.7%]
Total (n=1,096)
Have you HEARD about sending and receiving money using your phone?
95% CI
Don’t know (n=14)
1.2%
[0.7%,2.3%]
Yes (n=876)
79.9%
[75.2%,83.9%]
No (n=214)
18.8%
[15.2%,23.1%]
Total (n=1,105)
Do you, personally, have a mobile money account?
95% CI
Yes (n=85)
10.6%
[8.2%,13.6%]
No (n=705)
89.4%
[86.4%,91.8%]
Total (n=790)
In the last 12 months, have you used a mobile money account?
95% CI
Yes, to send and receive (n=8)
0.9%
[0.4%,2.2%]
Yes, to receive only (n=17)
2.2%
[1.3%,3.6%]
Yes, to send only (n=10)
1.1%
[0.6%,2.2%]
No, never in the past year (n=835)
95.1%
[93.3%,96.4%]
Total (n=876)
When did you last SEND money through Digicel Mobile Money, Vodafone mPaisa
or other?
95% CI
More than 12 months ago (n=1)
5.8%
[0.6%,38.9%]
In the last 12 months (n=5)
25.3%
[9.7%,51.5%]
In the last 90 days (n=4)
22.6%
[8.7%,47.2%]
In the last 30 days (n=7)
38.7%
[17.8%,64.8%]
Total (n=18)
When did you last RECEIVE money through Vodafone/Digicel Mobile Money or
another mobile money services?
95% CI
More than 12 months ago (n=6)
22.3%
[9.9%,43.0%]
In the last 12 months (n=8)
33.3%
[15.9%,56.8%]
In the last 90 days (n=4)
18.7%
[5.6%,47.1%]
In the last 30 days (n=4)
17.4%
[5.0%,46.0%]
Total (n=24)
F i n a n c i a l S e r v i c e s D e m a n d S i d e S u r v e y • R e p u b l i c o f F i j I | 45
Table 19: Remittances
Do you have any relatives or acquaintances living elsewhere (in Fiji or abroad
95% CI
Yes (n=300)
23.3% [20.6%,26.2%]
No (n=984)
76.7% [73.8%,79.4%]
N=1,284
Is the money sent from…?
Abroad (n=179)
95% CI
58.6% [50.7%,66%.1%]
Both from abroad and from Fiji (n=10)
Another part of Fiji (n=111)
3.1% [1.7%,5.7%]
38.2% [31.2%,45.7%]
N=300
How is the money from abroad usually sent to you?
Own bank account (n=27)
The Post Office (n=8)
Western Union, Money Gram, other (n=138)
95% CI
13.9% [9.4%,20.1%]
4.4% [1.9%,9.7%]
72.4% [64.8%,78.8%]
A relative or acquaintance (by cash) (n=8)
4.9% [2.4%,9.6%]
A relative or acquaintance (electronically, using their mobile or bank account) (n=3)
1.4% [0.4%,4.4%]
Other (specify) (n=5)
3.0% [1.2%,7.6%]
N=189
How is the money from elsewhere in Fiji usually sent to you?
95% CI
Own bank account (n=19)
14.8% [8.9%,23.5%]
The Post Office (n=51)
43.1% [30.1%,57.2%]
Your mobile money account (n=1)
0.9% [0.1%,6.4%]
Western Union, Money Gram, other (n=8)
6.4% [3.0%,13.1%]
A relative or acquaintance (by cash) (n=34)
27.5% [18.4%,39.0%]
A relative or acquaintance (electronically, using their mobile or bank account) (n=3)
2.5% [0.8%,7.6%]
Internet banking (n=1)
1.0% [0.1%,7.0%]
Other (specify) (n=4)
3.8% [1.3%,10.8%]
N=121
About how often do you usually receive this money?
95% CI
Once a week or more (n=9)
2.8% [1.3%,5.9%]
Every two weeks (n=24)
8.1% [5.6%,11.8%]
Once a month (n=77)
25.6% [20.2%,31.8%]
Once every 3 months (n=59)
20.2% [15.7%,25.7%]
Once every 6 months (n=59)
19.0% [14.5%,24.4%]
Once a year (n=50)
16.5% [11.9%,22.3%]
Less frequently than every year (n=19)
6.5% [4.0%,10.2%]
Other (specify) (n=3)
1.3% [0.4%,4.4%]
N=300
46 | F i n a n c i a l
Services Demand Side Survey • Republic of Fiji
Do you regularly send any money to family or friends (living elsewhere in Fiji
95% CI
Yes (n=132)
10.5% [8.3%,13.1%]
No (n=1,152)
89.5% [86.9%,91.7%]
N=1,284
Where do you send the money to?
95% CI
To another part of Fiji (n=127)
96% [88.7%,98.6%]
Both from Fiji and abroad (n=1)
0.7% [0.1%,5.1%]
Abroad (n=4)
3.3% [1.0%,10.9%]
N=132
How do you usually send the money to other parts of Fiji?
95% CI
Your bank account (n=23)
17.3% [10.7%,26.6%]
The Post Office (n=65)
51.1% [41.1%,61.0%]
Your mobile money account (n=3)
2.5% [0.8%,7.2%]
Western Union, Money Gram, other (n=5)
3.8% [1.5%,9.2%]
A relative or acquaintance (by cash) (n=15)
13.1% [7.4%,22.3%]
A relative or acquaintance (electronically, using their mobile or bank account)
(n=12)
8.5% [4.0%,17.0%]
Internet banking (n=2)
1.5% [0.4%,5.7%]
Other (specify) (n=3)
2.4% [0.8%,7.2%]
N=128
How do you usually send the money abroad?
Your bank account (n=2)
95% CI
44% [1.1%,98.2%]
Western Union, Money Gram, other (n=1)
17.5% [0.3%,94.2%]
A relative or acquaintance (electronically, using their mobile or bank account) (n=1)
22.8% [0.4%,95.9%]
Internet banking (n=1)
15.8% [0.2%,93.4%]
N=5
About how often do you usually send this money?
Once a week or more (n=1)
95% CI
0.9% [0.1%,6.2%]
Every two weeks (n=16)
12.8% [8.1%,19.6%]
Once a month (n=41)
29.6% [21.6%,39.1%]
Once every 3 months (n=33)
26.8% [19.7%,35.3%]
Once every 6 months (n=19)
12.9% [7.8%,20.5%]
Once a year (n=9)
6.6% [3.3%,12.8%]
Less frequently than every year (n=10)
7.9% [4.2%,14.3%]
Other (specify) (n=3)
2.6% [0.7%,9.7%]
N=132
Sends or receives remittances
95% CI
Yes (n=387)
30.1% [26.7%,33.7%]
No (n=900)
69.9% [66.3%,73.3%]
N=1,287
F i n a n c i a l S e r v i c e s D e m a n d S i d e S u r v e y • R e p u b l i c o f F i j I | 47
Table 20: Financial services, by financial inclusion segment
In the past 12 months, have you saved
or put aside any money, even a little
Excluded (N=358)
Informal only
(N=103)
Other formal
(N=54)
Banked
(N=772)
26.5%
30.2%
48.4%
64.8%
[21.2%,32.6%]
[22.0%,39.8%]
[34.5%,62.5%]
[59.8%,69.4%]
Have you given loans to OR borrowed
from family or friends during the last
Yes, giving loans only
Yes, borrowing only
Yes, giving AND borrowing
Have you saved at home during the last
12 months?
Have you given other people money
to keep safe for you during the last 12
months
Have you, personally, taken a loan from
an employer or client during the last 12
months
Have you, personally, taken a layby
during the last 12 months?
1%
15.3%
1.9%
5.9%
[0.4%,2.6%]
[7.4%,29.1%]
[0.3%,12.7%]
[4.1%,8.4%]
5.5%
14.6%
5.6%
5.3%
[3.3%,9.0%]
[9.6%,21.6%]
[1.8%,16.4%]
[3.4%,8.2%]
0.2%
2.7%
0%
1.7%
[0.0%,1.5%]
[0.9%,7.9%]
28.1%
54.9%
41.1%
30.5%
[23.1%,33.6%]
[42.0%,67.2%]
[28.6%,55.0%]
[26.8%,34.4%]
4.1%
3.7%
5.7%
5.1%
[2.4%,7.0%]
[1.4%,9.8%]
[1.8%,16.1%]
[3.0%,8.5%]
0.3%
0.7%
0%
1.8%
[0.0%,1.8%]
[0.1%,4.8%]
0.7%
0%
0.6%
[1.0%,3.0%]
2%
2%
[0.3%,12.5%]
[1.1%,3.6%]
1.9%
0.1%
[0.3%,12.7%]
[0.0%,0.9%]
39.2%
5.3%
7.7%
[26.3%,53.9%]
[1.2%,19.8%]
[4.9%,11.7%]
3.1%
0%
[0.2%,2.3%]
Have you, personally, pawned
something during the last 12 months?
[0.9%,3.0%]
0%
[0.1%,2.3%]
Have you used a savings club to save
OR borrow during the last 12 months?
Yes, to save only
Yes, to borrow only
0%
0%
[1.1%,8.0%]
Yes, to save and borrow
48 | F i n a n c i a l
0%
0.1%
[0.0%,0.7%]
1%
2%
1.1%
[0.1%,7.1%]
[0.3%,12.5%]
[0.5%,2.2%]
Services Demand Side Survey • Republic of Fiji
Have you given loans to others
with interest OR borrowed from
moneylenders
Yes, giving loans only
Yes, borrowing only
0.8%
0.9%
[0.3%,2.4%]
[0.1%,6.2%]
0%
0.8%
0%
[0.6%,2.2%]
0%
[0.1%,5.7%]
Have you, personally, taken a loan for
small things at the shop during the last
12 months
Have you, personally, taken a hire
purchase during the last 12 months?
0%
0%
1.1%
1.7%
[0.7%,4.6%]
58.7%
18.3%
7.6%
[42.2%,73.4%]
[9.2%,33.1%]
[5.1%,11.2%]
10.9%
11.4%
15%
[5.6%,19.9%]
[5.8%,21.1%]
[12.2%,18.2%]
0%
2.5%
0.8%
[0.4%,15.6%]
[0.3%,2.0%]
1.7%
0.9%
[0.2%,11.6%]
[0.4%,2.1%]
0%
1.2%
Have you, personally, saved OR
borrowed with a credit union or
cooperative
0%
Yes, to save only
0%
Yes, to borrow only
Yes, to save and borrow
0%
0%
0%
[0.6%,2.4%]
Have you, personally, saved with OR
borrowed from a microfinance institute
0%
Yes, to save only
0%
Yes, to borrow only
Yes, to save and borrow
Have you used a superannuation
fund (FNPF) to save during the last 12
months
Have you, personally, taken a loan from
a finance company during the last 12
months
Have you made any long term
investments, including stocks, bonds,
and other investments
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
2%
0.6%
[0.3%,12.5%]
[0.2%,1.3%]
7%
0.8%
[2.0%,21.4%]
[0.3%,2.1%]
7%
1.2%
[2.7%,16.9%]
[0.6%,2.4%]
69.8%
40%
[54.3%,81.9%]
[35.4%,44.7%]
2.7%
2.6%
[0.6%,10.9%]
[1.6%,4.2%]
0%
1.3%
[0.7%,2.3%]
F i n a n c i a l S e r v i c e s D e m a n d S i d e S u r v e y • R e p u b l i c o f F i j I | 49
Table 21: Financial services, by location
Urban
Rural
In the past 12 months, have you saved or put aside any
money, even a little?
56%
[50.2%,61.6%]
45.5%
[41.1%,49.9%]
Have you saved at home during the last 12 months?
28%
[24.1%,32.4%]
36.8%
[32.0%,41.9%]
Have you used a savings club to save OR borrow during
the last 12 months? (to borrow only)
4.7%
[2.5%,8.7%]
11.8%
[7.1%,18.8%]
Have you used a superannuation fund (FNPF) to save
during the last 12 months?
36.1%
[31.2%,41.4%]
17.6%
[13.5%,22.5%]
Have you, personally, taken a loan for small things at
the shop during the last 12 months?
4.4%
[2.9%,6.8%]
16.4%
[11.7%,22.6%]
Have you, personally, taken a hire purchase during the
last 12 months?
13%
[10.1%,16.5%]
7.8%
[5.7%,10.5%]
16.6%
[13.5%,20.2%]
7.4%
[5.4%,10.1%]
Do you have any type of insurance?
50 | F i n a n c i a l
Services Demand Side Survey • Republic of Fiji
Page 66
Annex D: Methodology
The Fiji DSS covered a nationally representative sample of 1,284 respondents throughout Fiji. The
sample was selected from the national census household sample frame using stratified, 2-stage
systematic sampling. The first stage of sampling was at the division level, and the 2nd stage was at the
enumeration area (EA) level proportional to population size. 10 households, along with 3 extra, were
randomly selected in each of 100 EAs. Enumerators then used a kish grid to randomly select one adult
respondent
years
or older)
per household.
weights
were constructed
following
completion
The (15
Fiji DSS
covered
a nationally
representativeStatistical
sample of 1,284
respondents
throughout Fiji.
The sample
was selected from
the nationalby
census
household
sample
frame using
stratified, 2-stage systematic sampling. The first stage of sampling was at
of data collection
the Fiji
Bureau
of Statistics
(FBOS).
Annex D: Methodology
the division level, and the 2nd stage was at the enumeration area (EA) level proportional to population size. 10 households,
with
3 extra, were
selected
in each
100 EAs.
then used a kish grid
to randomly
select one
While analong
initial
demand
side randomly
survey was
created
in of
Phase
1 ofEnumerators
the Data Measurement
Project,
the survey
adult respondent (15 years or older) per household. Statistical weights were constructed following completion of data
was tailored and piloted extensively to ensure that the survey met the priorities of the RBF and was
collection by the Fiji Bureau of Statistics (FBOS).
appropriate for the Fijian context.
While an initial demand side survey was created in Phase 1 of the Data Measurement Project, the survey was tailored and
to ensure that
theconducted
survey met the
the RBFAll
andsurveys
was appropriate
for the Fijian
Training piloted
on theextensively
survey instrument
was
bypriorities
BFA andofFBOS.
were collected
oncontext.
Training
on the survey
instrument
was conducted
by(CAPI)
BFA andsoftware.
FBOS. All surveys were collected on tablets using computer
tablets using
computer
assisted
personal
interview
assisted personal interview (CAPI) software.
Description
of the sample
Description of the sample
The sample
1,287
respondents
was
drawn
allfour
four
divisions
ofproportional
Fiji, proportional
to their
The of
sample
of 1,287
respondents
was
drawn from
from all
divisions
of Fiji,
to their population.
population.
37%
41.70%
17%
4.20%
Central (n=511)
Eastern (n=61)
Northern (n=208)
Western (n=507)
Fijian provinces were represented as follows.
The FijianThe
provinces
were represented as follows.
Province
Province
Ba (n=364)
Ba (n=364)
Bua (n=26)
Bua (n=26)
Cakaudrove
Cakaudrove
(n=78) (n=78)
Kadavu
Kadavu (n=22) (n=22)
Lau (n=13)Lau (n=13)
Lomaiviti Lomaiviti
(n=13) (n=13)
Macuata Macuata
(n=104)(n=104)
Nadroga/Navosa
(n=91)(n=91)
Nadroga/Navosa
Naitasiri (n=257)
Naitasiri (n=257)
Namosi (n=13)
Ra (n=52)
26.8%
2.6%
6.7%
1.6%
0.9%
1%
7.7%
6.3%
22.4%
26.8%
2.6%
6.7%
1.6%
0.9%
1%
7.7%
6.3%
22.4%
1.1%
4%
Rewa (n=150)
10.7%
Rotuma (n=13)
0.8%
Serua (n=26)
2.4%
Tailevu (n=65)
5.1%
N=1,287
F i n a n c i a l S e r v i c e s D e m a n d S i d e S u r v e y • R e p u b l i c o f F i j I | 51
Fiji Demand Side Survey
Page 68
All respondents
were
over
years old.
age age
of theofrespondents
was 40.7 was
years.40.7 years.
All respondents
were
over
1515years
old.The
Theaverage
average
the respondents
Location
Gender
49.7%
50.3%
Urban (n=637)
4.1%
Rural (n=650)
Ethnicity
Male (n=640)
Female (n=639)
Native language
1.3%
1.8%
38.1%
49.9%
50.1%
1.4%
37.3%
57.8%
iTaukei (n=754)
Fijian of Indian origin (n=478)
Other (n=52)
52 | F i n a n c i a l
58.2%
Fijian (n=758)
Hindi (n=468)
English (n=16)
Other (n=17)
Services Demand Side Survey • Republic of Fiji
Rotuma (n=24)
Fiji Demand Side Survey
Page 69
Reading in English
Reading in native language
5.9%
9.4%
13.6%
22.0%
72.1%
Yes, comfortably (n=923)
77.0%
Yes, comfortably (n=982)
Yes, a little (n=285)
Yes, a little (n=172)
No, not at all (n=114)
No, not at all (n=76)
Education level
40%
37.4%
35%
30%
25%
20%
10.4%
10%
5%
14.4%
13.8%
15%
1.4%
13.0%
8.1%
0.9%
0.6%
0%
None
(n=18)
Primary
Primary Secondary Secondary University University Masters or Other (n=7)
school
complete incomplete complete incomplete complete doctorate
incomplete (n=128)
(n=487)
(n=184)
(n=103)
(n=167)
(n=11)
(n=179)
F i n a n c i a l S e r v i c e s D e m a n d S i d e S u r v e y • R e p u b l i c o f F i j I | 53
54 | F i n a n c i a l
Services Demand Side Survey • Republic of Fiji