Roughly 1.3 billion adults around the globe, about 16 percent of the adult population, still lack access to formal financial services, according to the World Bank’s 2024 Global Findex Database. Behind that number sits a tangle of problems: limited savings, mounting household debt, unfamiliarity with financial products, and distrust of banks. A team of researchers set out to ask what actually works when programs try to teach people how to manage money, who benefits, and where these efforts fall short.
Their answer, published in Social Sciences, takes the form of a systematic review of 120 studies on financial literacy programs from the past decade. The authors, led by Mariela de los Ángeles Hidalgo-Mayorga of Universidad Nacional de Chimborazo in Ecuador along with four colleagues from the same institution, pull together a wide-ranging picture of what these programs teach, who they reach, what effects they produce, and where the obstacles sit.
The question behind the review
Financial literacy is often described as more than knowing what a budget is. The authors define it as the combination of knowledge, skills, attitudes, and behaviors that let someone make informed money decisions. That’s distinct from financial education, which focuses on teaching concepts. Literacy, in their framing, is about applying them.
The team wanted to know whether and how this kind of literacy can reduce economic inequality and expand inclusion. They also wanted practical intelligence: Which program designs show up most often? Which populations get served? What effects do participants report? What goes wrong during implementation? And what lessons can travel across borders?
How they assembled the evidence
The researchers followed PRISMA, a standard protocol for systematic reviews that sets rules for searching databases, screening studies, and documenting decisions. They searched Scopus and Web of Science for articles published between 2015 and 2025 whose titles contained both a financial literacy term (financial education, financial literacy, or financial knowledge) and an inclusion term (inclusion or empowerment).
That search returned 209 records. After removing duplicates, screening abstracts, and attempting to retrieve full texts, the team ended up with 142 studies. They then conducted a risk-of-bias assessment adapted from Cochrane Collaboration criteria, looking at methodology, data quality, and selective reporting. Twenty studies were dropped for weak methodology or for not addressing the research questions. That left 120 studies in the final pool.
One pattern worth noting: the studies cluster heavily in Asia, with Indonesia producing the largest share. Publication volume rose steadily from 2015 through a 2024 peak, suggesting growing academic attention to financial literacy as an inclusion strategy.
What the programs actually look like
The programs described in the literature fall into a few recognizable shapes. The most common type teaches basic concepts: savings, budgeting, compound interest, inflation, and responsible borrowing. These are typically delivered through workshops, seminars, community talks, and group training. A second tier offers more advanced material on investment planning, credit markets, financial calculations, stocks, and bonds.
A third category focuses on Islamic finance and Sharia-compliant products, aimed at communities that might otherwise avoid conventional banking for religious reasons. A fourth involves digital channels: mobile apps, gamified platforms, chatbots, online courses, and social media campaigns designed to widen reach.
Other programs target specific populations. Some operate in shelters for women who have experienced domestic violence. Others work with rural women entrepreneurs, farmers, or informal workers. The common thread among these targeted efforts is adaptation to local context rather than a one-size-fits-all curriculum.
Who the programs reach
Rural communities show up most often in the reviewed studies, reflecting the limited presence of formal banking in remote areas. Women are the second most common focus, particularly in contexts where gender norms or religious rules limit their participation in formal finance.
The authors note that several groups receive less attention despite facing steep barriers. Informal workers, migrants, refugees, people with disabilities, and older adults appear in fewer studies. The authors argue that these populations could benefit substantially from targeted programs and represent an area where future work is needed.
What participants gain
The reviewed studies associate financial literacy with a range of outcomes. Participants tend to report better handling of income and expenses, more consistent saving, and clearer investment planning. Some build credit histories, open bank accounts, or begin using mobile banking. Others prepare emergency funds or plan for retirement.
For entrepreneurs, the picture extends to business performance. Studies link financial literacy to better cash flow management, more strategic use of credit, and increased sustainability of micro-, small-, and medium-sized enterprises. The authors interpret this as evidence that financial knowledge translates into operational improvements, not just personal habit change, though the observational nature of most studies means these are associations rather than proven causal effects.
Several studies cited in the review also tie financial literacy to broader economic outcomes. Work by Lusardi and colleagues, for instance, suggests financial education explains a meaningful share of wealth inequality in the United States. Research from Italy by Gallo and Sconti associates gains in financial knowledge with reductions in inequality. Oliver-Márquez and coauthors find redistributive effects, though with a caveat: beyond a certain threshold, the effect may reverse.
Where programs run into trouble
The review identifies a consistent set of obstacles. Technological infrastructure is thin in many rural areas, which limits the reach of digital platforms. Cultural and religious norms sometimes clash with program content, particularly for women. Many programs remain theoretical, lack standardized curricula, or fail to integrate with broader education systems.
Measurement is another weak spot. The authors note that few studies track long-term impact, and the methods used to evaluate programs vary widely, making cross-study comparison difficult. Program fragmentation, low coverage, and inconsistent teacher training also surface repeatedly across the literature.
Distrust of financial institutions appears as a recurring barrier. In some contexts, people who complete financial literacy programs still don’t use formal services because they doubt the institutions themselves. The authors interpret this as evidence that knowledge alone isn’t enough; the surrounding environment matters.
Lessons the authors draw for practitioners
Several recommendations emerge from the review. Content should be adapted to local cultural, linguistic, and socioeconomic conditions rather than imported wholesale. Local actors should be involved in program design. Connectivity and translation into local languages matter for reach.
Multisectoral collaboration, involving governments, financial institutions, community groups, and academic partners, shows up repeatedly as a feature of more effective programs. So does integration of financial content into school and university curricula, which the authors argue can produce intergenerational effects on financial behavior.
For financial institutions and NGOs, the review suggests that combining financial education with practical access to credit, markets, and digital tools produces stronger results than classroom instruction alone. Programs that layer in peer networks, real entrepreneurial experience, and ongoing mentorship appear in the literature as more effective than one-off workshops.
Caveats worth holding in mind
The authors flag limitations in their own work. The 120 studies use varied methodologies, which complicates direct comparison. Some full texts couldn’t be retrieved, reducing the final sample. And the geographic concentration in Asia, particularly Indonesia, means the findings may not generalize cleanly to other regions.
Readers should also keep in mind that most of the underlying studies are observational. They describe associations between financial literacy and outcomes like savings or business performance rather than proving that the programs caused those outcomes. People who sign up for and complete financial literacy training may differ from those who don’t in ways that independently affect their financial behavior.
