Inclusive insurance to fuel an inclusive recovery


Notwithstanding a resurgence in SARS-CoV-2 infection driven by the Delta-variant, the global economy has largely continued to recover in 2021. The recovery, however, has been uneven, with infection and vaccination rates varying in speed. In Asia, China has administered a staggering 1.78 billion doses of vaccines (as of 9 August), which has helped to facilitate the opening of the domestic economy and the near-full resumption of business activities. In comparison, many emerging Asian markets are still struggling with low vaccination rates and tight lock-down measures. Some Asian markets like Indonesia, which is estimated to be still around 7% short of its pre-crisis trend growth as of mid-August,[1] will likely see a long recovery ahead.  

The protracted economic crisis has highlighted predicaments facing those who are underprivileged and disadvantaged. Alongside job losses and dwindling economic opportunities, the pandemic has further widened social inequality and could have increased global poverty by as much as half a billion people.[2] Generous social security benefits arranged by governments have, to a certain extent, helped to cushion some of the fallouts from the pandemic. Still, the sustainability of those benefits is increasingly uncertain as a result of rising government debts, particularly among emerging markets. Calls to avoid the premature winding-up of fiscal largesse have to be balanced against concerns over long-term fiscal sustainability and vulnerability to taper tantrums.

Thus, the unfolding global economic recovery offers an opportunity to tackle widening inequality and protection gaps. The call for an inclusive recovery aims to allow more economic benefits to be shared by a bigger segment of the population. An inclusive recovery will require the collaboration and cooperation of an expansive group of stakeholders, including governments, multinational institutions, private sector practitioners, non-profit organisations, academia and thinktanks. In particular, insurance can play an important role in building resilience for those not adequately covered by social security, or those with significant protection gaps due to affordability or accessibility reasons. Inclusive insurance is one part of the puzzle for an inclusive recovery strategy.

The case for an inclusive recovery

The arguments for inclusiveness during recovery are both generic and idiosyncratic. Even before the COVID-19 pandemic and the resulting economic crisis, a lack of inclusiveness was more often than not a defining feature of economic development in many emerging markets. As a result, governments have, even at this early stage, emphasised the need for financial inclusion and resilience building for individuals, businesses, and societies. A common measure of the lack of inclusiveness is high and rising social inequality. For example, recent research has found a rising income share by the top 10% earners and that there has been a massive increase in wealth concentration in markets like the US, China, and Russia.[3]  As already mentioned, the pandemic has unwound decades of progress in eradicating extreme poverty. The World Bank in January 2021 estimated that between 119 and 124 million people fell into extreme poverty last year, with the bulk residing in South Asia.[4] This is easily the first global increase in extreme poverty since the Asian Financial Crisis in 1997. Other development indicators also show similarly disturbing trends and threaten the UN Sustainable Development Goals (see Table 1).

Table 1: Indicators of societal development

Source: ILO, UNICEF, World Bank

The pandemic has shown that many poor or underprivileged people are at risk, including migrants and informal workers (see section below on Informal employment and impact of the pandemic) who form a large segment of “key workers” but are not usually covered by social security. Furthermore, the pandemic and subsequent economic recession are threatening even the emerging middle-class. Compared to 2019, 41% of Latin Americans were classified as middle-income, with the ratio dropping to 37% in 2020.[9] This demonstrates clearly that the rise of the middle-class is not inevitable, and many are vulnerable can fall back to lower income levels.

Informal employment and impact of the pandemic

The informal sector is generally defined as the part of the economy not monitored by a tax authority or other forms of governments. Alternatively, it can be defined as jobs that are not based on written contracts, and do not come with usual employment benefits like paid leave and medical care. While many informal workers are engaged in lowly paid jobs, not all individuals in the informal sector are necessarily poor and vulnerable.

The size of the informal sector varies and depends on economic development, societal norms and industrial structures. In India, it was estimated that 90.7% of employment was in the informal sector in 2017-18. The ILO estimated the share of informal employment at 87.7%, 51.5%, and 55.7% in low-, middle-, and high-income countries globally.[10] Figure 2a below shows that in Sub-Sahara Africa and South Asia, more than half of employment is in the so-called “traditional informal sector”. The share will be much higher if the “modern informal sector” is also included. This refers to those sectors that use capital and labour and are organised in firms, compared to the “traditional informal sector” that only uses labour and is mainly in the form of self-employment.

Figure 1: Share of informal employment by regions

Source: LHS: Loayza and Meza-Cuadra (2018). Loayza, N., and C. Meza-Cuadra. 2018. A Toolkit for Informality Scenario Analysis. Washington, DC: World Bank. RHS: COVID-19 Crisis and the Informal Economy: Immediate Responses and Policy Challenges. Geneva, Switzerland: ILO.

The pandemic has significantly impacted informal workers (see Figure 2b). The ILO study shows that lockdowns and recessions hit almost three-quarters of the 2 billion people dependent on the informal sector. Many of those who fell below the poverty line as a result of the pandemic were working as informal workers.

The need for inclusive growth has never been more pressing. Failure to bring inclusiveness into the recovery would risk the achievement of the SDGs and sow the seeds of social instability and economic malaise. The inability to rectify learning poverty, for example, could dampen the potential long-term growth of many emerging markets. Broadly speaking, an inclusive recovery should aim for a fair and equitable distribution of economic benefit regardless of race, gender, and other social characterisation. More specifically, the OECD characterises an inclusive recovery to mean

  1. addressing inequalities in education;
  2. supporting people, jobs & small businesses;
  3. closing the digital divide;
  4. measuring what matters in people’s lives; and
  5. working together on health, tax & trade.[11]
Figure 2: Objectives of an inclusive recovery from COVID-19

Source: Focus on an inclusive recovery, OECD

There are different ways to bring about a better distribution of economic outcomes and reduce inequality, improving inclusiveness, and rebuilding resilience. Yet, some of the conventional policy tools are less optimal or otherwise being exhausted. For example, monetary policies are never a good option to begin with, as the redistribution effect of monetary instruments is limited. The risk of systemic risk is also increased alongside the protracted practice of quantitative easing. Fiscal policies can achieve more redistribution effects to address inequality (e.g. universal healthcare) and build resilience (e.g. through investment in climate-proof infrastructure), but large fiscal spending is increasingly unattainable due to rising government debts and the threat of higher debt servicing costs.

Beyond the scope of government policies, a multi-stakeholder approach can help sustain an inclusive recovery that leverages the capability of the public sector, private companies, multi-national institutions, institution investors, NGOs, and other stakeholders. Efforts are underway to pursue a job-rich recovery that empowers the youth and workers while at the same time focusing on environmental protection and tackling climate challenges. Inclusive insurance should be given more thought as well, as it can help to build resilience and narrow protection gaps. Furthermore, by supporting “financial inclusion”, inclusive insurance also contribute to financial stability. This is an opportunity for insurance companies to broaden their franchise, validate insurance value, and close the protection gaps.

What is inclusive insurance?

Over the past few decades, inclusive insurance has evolved, taken on different forms, and operated under various business models, alongside progress in inclusive finance (e.g., microfinance).[12] In its current self, inclusive insurance[13] refers to different forms of insurance solutions (and business models) that target the unserved, underserved, vulnerable, or low-income populations in an affordable and accessible manner. The need for inclusive insurance arises because conventional insurance may not necessarily be accessible or affordable to those segments of society. In addition, a lack of appropriate regulations and policies may limit the applicability of conventional insurance; there is a lack of infrastructure and underwriting data; and there is a low level of financial literacy particularly among poorer people. In the face of these challenges, inclusive insurance has been advocated as an alternative.

Instead of a tight definition, it is more appropriate to characterise the general features that define inclusive insurance.

  • Simplified products that are cost-efficient to structure, easy to explain and understand, and engender trust among the policyholders; policy terms are usually shorter to limit risks to carriers; claims processing is fast and straightforward
  • Flexible structure that fits the needs and circumstances of the insured, for example, premiums collected not on a monthly base but tied to the income stream of insured; products can be structured with lower-than-usual sum insured, and premiums are sometimes subsidies by governments to render insurance affordable even to low-income customers
  • Leveraging new technologies to ease the burden of distribution and improve accessibility, for example, using mobile-phone for distribution, premium collection, claims submission, and disbursement
  • Following a sustainable and responsible principle, and delivered within the scope of national supervision
  • Aiming to cover a broad group, including all those that are not served by conventional insurance; the target customers include mainly the lower segment of the pyramid and the emerging middle-class, who are typically not fully protected by formal safety nets.

The application of inclusion insurance can take different forms and business models, including microinsurance, mutuals, informal insurance, livelihood insurance, and public-private partnership. The last decade saw the viability and feasibility of such insurance schemes having improved to the extent that they can be financially profitable and have a positive social impact. In terms of economic sectors, inclusive insurance can focus on agriculture, SMEs, financial, and health. Various studies have pointed to the vast potential of inclusive insurance, which can benefit close to 4 billion people globally (see Figure 3). The number of insurers partaking in the market has also increased from 7 in 2005 to 60 in 2016.[14] As pointed out in a joint report from the Center for Financial Inclusion at Accion and the Institute of International Finance. “[t]his market is vast, largely untapped, and potentially profitable”.[15]

Figure 3: Global potential market size for inclusive insurance (in terms of population size)

Source: Adapted from Allianz, Emerging Consumers 2016 Full Year Insurance Report, using updated World Bank population number.

Inclusive insurance in practice

Many forms of insurance lend themselves to supporting inclusiveness, but they are also practised as part of conventional insurance. For example, digitally-enabled insurance is extensively used in conventional insurance as well as being leveraged to enable inclusive insurance. As such, it is worth noting that not all insurance practices described in this section are exclusively provided as inclusive inclusion – they can also be offered as conventional insurance. Furthermore, inclusive insurance is not offered solely to the poor – higher-income households without access to insurance can also benefit. Last but not least, the different business applications are not mutually exclusive, as we have seen in the blending of microinsurance and takaful insurance into micro-takaful insurance.

A. Microinsurance

The International Association of Insurance Supervisors (IAIS) defined “microinsurance” as insurance accessed by low-income populations, provided by various entities but run under generally accepted insurance practices.[16] While inclusive insurance (fair and equitable insurance) also targets people with a higher income but still do not have access to adequate insurance, microinsurance typically services the low-income population.

It is often mentioned that microinsurance can potentially cover 4 billion people globally through market-based risk transfer solutions and offers a viable alternative for low-income households to manage their risk exposures. A study by the Micro-Insurance Network across 27 countries and 194 insurers showed that, in 2019, between 41 and 102 million people were covered with microinsurance products at total premiums of USD 1 060 million. [17]

Microinsurance symbolises inclusive insurance and shares many characteristics, like simplicity, flexibility, affordability, and accessibility. Currently, most products cover life, personal accidents, funeral expenses, and health care, but efforts are underway to spread covers to include climate disasters and other property lines. (see Figure 4).

Figure 4: Microinsurance premiums collected (USD millions) in all regions by product line

Source: The Landscape of Microinsurance 2020, Microinsurance Network.

B. Digitally-enabled insurance

While the digital distribution of insurance is nothing new (it was said that insurance vending machines for life insurance were available in France shortly after WWII), it plays an increasingly important role in enabling inclusive insurance.

Digitalisation is on an upward trend post-COVID-19, which could support increasing insurance penetration to the segment of the society previously not accessible to insurance. Digitally-enabled insurance use cases are vast and still growing, while their significance rests with simplicity, affordability, and accessibility. It was estimated that some 2.9 billion people have access to mobile network services in the Asia-Pacific region, and one time out of ten mobile microinsurance is a person’s first experience with insurance.[18]

C. Mutual insurance

Mutual insurance refers to the universe of risk-sharing that aims to satisfy the everyday needs of members instead of the shareholders. Typically, the insurance carrier that provides risk protection is owned by its member-customers (policyholders) rather than by shareholders. There are many different types of such organisations. According to a European Commission study, approximately 40 types of mutual-like organisations were identified in Europe.[19]

Mutuals represent a significant segment of the global insurance market. The focus on mutuality and support for members strongly lends to inclusiveness in financial services provision. According to a study by the International Cooperative and Mutual Insurance Federation (ICMIF), globally, over 5 100 mutual insurers wrote USD 1.3 trillion in premiums in 2017, representing a global market share of 26.7%.[20] Significantly, it was estimated that mutuals and cooperatives collectively served 922 million members or policyholders in 2017. The largest markets for mutuals are in North America and Europe, while Asia & Oceania accounted for 17% of global mutual premiums.

D. Public-private partnership

Public-private partnership (PPP) embeds the principle of multi-stakeholder engagements where each stakeholder focuses on their relative competitiveness. Conventional insurance focuses on insurers reaching out to their customers while the government is tasked with setting rules and enforcing compliance. In PPP, the public sector could take on a more prominent position in enabling affordability by subsidising premiums or purchasing insurance for the underprivileged. The benefit of PPP is often associated with ex-ante financing to replace ex-post ones, enhancing the certainty of availability of funds and timeliness of funds getting to those in need. The number of cases of PPP has increased steadily in recent years, mainly covering disaster risks and life and health. Unfortunately, reliable data on the size of the market is not available.

In addition to the much-publicised use of public-private partnerships to manage natural catastrophes and climate risks, PPP could also help insure against pandemic risk. Before the pandemic, dedicated parametric pandemic insurance (covering loss of profit and revenue) met with minimal interest. The World Bank Group’s Pandemic Emergency Financing Facility (PEF), having paid out close to USD200 million to 64 low-income countries in 2020, is being criticised as too complex and costly.[21] Furthermore, unlike natural catastrophe risks, pandemic risks are correlated with the financial markets, thus reducing the diversification benefits to institutional investors. As a result, PPP is now being considered a viable alternative by leveraging governments’ capacity as “insurers of last resort” to provide pandemic business continuity insurance, particularly to small- and medium enterprises.

E. Takaful

Takaful was born with the notion that conventional insurance does not comply with some of the fundamentals of Islam, to which around one-quarter of the world’s population adheres. In light of this, takaful insurance was developed in the late 1970s to cater to the needs of the segment of people previously excluded from insurance due to non-compliance with Shariah laws. By 2019, it was estimated that takaful premiums had reached USD 24 billion, following an 18% growth per year.[22] A subset called micro-takaful, which targets explicitly low-income individuals, households, and businesses, is gaining traction though the market size is still tiny. [23]

Takaful insurance (and micro-takaful schemes) can operate as an alternative coping strategy for low-income Muslim households excluded from conventional insurance and existing social securities. Importantly, as demonstrated in the success of takaful in some emerging Asia markets (e.g., Malaysia), takaful insurance has shown to be attractive to non-Muslim with its appeal of alignment of interests between insureds and insurers. Some examples of micro-takaful insurance schemes are shown in Appendix I. Table 2 below summarises the different insurance models that contribute to inclusive insurance.

Table 2: Inclusive insurance at a glance

Source: III, ICMIF, Microinsurance Network, European Commission, Geneva Association, Peak Re

The roles of inclusive insurance

It can be argued that private insurance, as opposed to social insurance, is not optimally designed to address social inequality. Insurance can help reduce volatility in financial outcomes but assuming the impact of insured events is distributed randomly, the effect of insurance on income and wealth distribution is less specific. Nonetheless, insurance can indirectly support reduction in social inequality by covering risks that may pull lower-income households into poverty. Research by the Peking University suggested that insurance and its supporting mechanisms, including reinsurance and alternative risk transfer solutions, are powerful tools to help alleviate poverty as a result of natural disasters or catastrophic health expenses.[24] Other research found that life insurance may be better able to reduce income disparity than non-life insurance.[25] A recent report from the Geneva Association focuses on three key risks facing households and individuals in the context of social inequality:

  1. premature death and disability (of the main breadwinner);
  2. increased longevity and old-age poverty; and
  3. job displacements.

The report suggests that a range of insurance solutions, including term life, annuities, wage and livelihood insurance, can be leveraged to mitigate the negative impact of these key risks on social inequality.[26]

Furthermore, conventional insurance can be modified to achieve better inclusiveness outcomes, for example, through risk equalisation. While risk-rating of insured is typically applied as part of the overall underwriting process, it may result in higher premium loading for specific client groups. For example, in health insurance, the elderly, those with pre-conditions, and to some extent women, may draw higher premiums. Financial transfers can be arranged, usually through a public sector entity (a risk equalisation fund, REF), to subsidise insurers with a portfolio of relatively less healthy lives to render the post-subsidised premiums more affordable.

Insurance, both conventional and inclusive, contribute to economic growth and the well-being of societies, such as a more healthy population leading to higher labour productivity. Perhaps the connection between insurance and inclusiveness can be better illustrated when considering a scenario where there was a lack of access to insurance (see Table 3). Both the ex-ante and ex-post impacts highlight the severe negative effects of un-insurance or under-insurance on resilience.

Table 3: Examples of impacts from lack of insurance

Source: Adopted from sigma no.4/2017, Insurance: adding value to development in emerging markets, Swiss Re Institute, 2017, Table 1.

Furthermore, the pandemic has exposed major fault lines in existing social security protection. While governments have mobilised unprecedented resources to scale up social protection to shield vulnerable people from the pandemic and recession, there inevitably are those who are not adequately protected. Furthermore, these relief measures have a relatively short shelf-life, averaging only four months, and the weak fiscal position of many emerging markets renders improbable the extension of such rescue programs. As such, inclusive insurance could play a supplementary or complementary role to social protection schemes.

For example, social security schemes (or social insurance) could cover the medical costs for treatment of COVID-19 but in case of a loss of household breadwinners, the surviving family members would not receive sufficient compensation from the public schemes. At the same time, many SMEs face liquidity crunches and other financial challenges and they are not necessarily high on the priority list of government supports. Inclusive insurance can help households close their protection gaps or SMEs deal with contingent business scenarios.

In short, inclusive insurance can be a powerful tool to amplify the equalisation and inclusive effect of conventional insurance. It can be deployed to supplement and complement public schemes, which typically have a stronger redistribution impact to mitigate widening income and wealth disparities. At the same time, insurance helps promote financial literacy, which has been one of the factors hindering the development of inclusive finance.


Inclusive insurance can play an essential role in supporting resilience and inclusiveness in the post-pandemic period. It also represents a real opportunity for insurance to validate their value proposition and strengthen their relevance to societies. While the potential market is vast, more works need to be done to capitalise on the trend.

Importantly, we will need regulatory support, which has developed fast in the past decade. According to the A2ii, inclusive insurance regulations were implemented in 6 markets in 2009 (Mexico, Peru, China, Taiwan, India, and the Philippines). This has since increased to 25 in 2019, with another 23 markets having relevant regulations under development.[27] Different forms of inclusive insurance will require various enacting regulations, but the recent growth in enactments should allow regulators to learn from more examples. Indeed, according to the finding of EIU, the overall enabling environment for financial inclusion has improved globally, with Latin America being the region with the most conducive regulations (see Append II).[28]

In addition, the pandemic has revealed gaps in coverage and protection offered by existing insurance products.[29] Many of the post-pandemic changes in instituational settings and consumer behaviours will also have a strong bearing on the coming practice of inclusive insurance. The shift from “small government” to a more “dynamic public sector”, for example, offers hopes of more flexible schemes to allow PPP or partnership with social insurance. A shift from “yearly results” to “patient finance” also bodes well for a renewed focus on the well-being of policyholders or member-consumers instead of short-term financial outcome (see Table 4).

Figure 5: Overall shift in narrative and approach to economic policy and business strategy

Source: Building Back Broader: Policy Pathways for an Economic Transition, World Economic Forum, June 2021.

This change in mindset could well be the most challenging aspect of the adoption of inclusive insurance. Insurers will have to think innovatively – no simple downsizing existing/traditional products for lower-income/emerging affluence but structure tailored products for them, and understand the local idiosyncratic needs and circumstances.

Appendix I: Examples of micro-takaful insurance schemes in Indonesia (as available as of 2017)

Source: Takaful, microtakaful and the foundations of inclusion, Microinsurance Network, April 2021.

Appendix II: The 2019 Microscope Ranking of Enabling Environment for Financial Inclusion

The ranking was based on a detailed evaluation of findings in five domains: 1) Government and policy support; 2) Stability and integrity; 3) Products and outlets; 4) Consumer protection; and 5) Infrastructure. The 2019 study focuses mainly on emerging markets.

Source: Global microscope 2019 – The enabling environment for financial inclusion, The Economist Intelligence Unit, 2019.

[1]The OECD Weekly Tracker of economic activity”, OECD, accessed on 11 August 2021.

[2] Sumner A. et al., “Estimates of the impact of COVID-19 on global poverty”, WIDER Working Paper 2020/43, United Nations University.

[3] Geneva Association, The role of insurance in mitigating social inequality, August 2020.

[4] Lakner, C. et al., “Updated estimates of the impact of COVID-19 on global poverty: Looking back at 2020 and the outlook for 2021”, World Bank Blogs, World Bank, January 2021.

[5] There is an ongoing debate on the adequacy of using the old poverty line of USD1.90 per day, which some critics said failed to reflect a “reasonable conception of life with dignity”. Using alternative poverty lines, for example, that of upper-middle-income countries of USD5.5 per day, shows poverty has hardly declined since 1990.

[6] Azevedo, Joao Pedro. “Learning Poverty in the Time of COVID-19: A Crisis within a Crisis”, World Bank (2020), Washington, DC. The report also highlights the longer-term economic costs from learning deprivation, at USD 10 trillion (or one-tenth of global GDP) in labour earnings over the students’ future working lives.

[7] The loss in work is more severe if measured by the number of hours worked, which declined by 8.8% globally in 2020, equivalent to 255 million jobs. See “ILO Monitor: COVID-19 and the world of work. 7th edition”, International Labour Organization, January 2021.

[8] ILO and UNICEF, Child Labour, Global estimates 2020, trends and the road forward, International Labour Organisation and United Nations Children Fund, June 2021.

[9] Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC), Social Panorama of Latin America 2020, United Nations, Santiago, 2021.

[10]ILO,Informality and Non-Standard Forms of Employment, International Labour Organization, 2020; prepared for the G20 Employment Working Group Meeting Buenos Aires. Geneva, Switzerland.

[11]Focus on an inclusive recovery”, OECD, accessed on 27 August 2021.

[12] “Financial inclusion” refers to a state in which all working-age adults have effective access to credit, savings, payments, and insurance from formal providers. “Effective access” involves convenient and responsible service delivery at a cost affordable to the customer and sustainable for the provider, resulting in financially excluded customers using formal financial services rather than existing informal options. See Global Partnership for Financial Inclusion (GPFI), Global Standard-Setting Bodies and Financial Inclusion for the Poor: Toward Proportionate Standards and Guidance, GPFI, October 2011.

[13] There are numerous variants to inclusive insurance, including mass insurance, popular insurance, and impact insurance. This paper will use inclusive insurance to represent all of the above.

[14] IIF, Insurance Inclusion: Reaching Underserved Population with Tech, Institute of International Finance, September 2016. See also sigma 6/2010, Microinsurance – risk protection for 4 billion people, Swiss Re Institute, 2010.

[15] IIF and CFI, Inclusive Insurance: Closing the Protection Gap for Emerging Customers, Center for Financial Inclusion at Accion and Institute of International Finance, 2018.

[16] IAIS, Application Paper on Regulation and Supervision supporting Inclusive Insurance Markets, International Association of Insurance Supervisors, October 2012.

[17] The Landscape of Microinsurance 2020, Microinsurance Network, 2020. It should be noted that the number of people covered excluded India due to pandemic lockdown hindering data collection. The report suggests that if India is included, it will more than double the number of beneficiaries of microinsurance to between 162 and 253 million people.

[18] III, “Background on microinsurance and emerging markets”, Insurance Information Institute, April 2021.

[19] Study on the current situation and prospects of mutuals in Europe, Panteia, commissioned by the European Commission, DG Enterprise, 2015.

[20] ICMIF, Global Mutual Market Share 10, International Cooperative and Mutual Insurance Federation (ICMIF) Financial Insights, 2019.

[21] Public-Private Solutions to Pandemic Risk, Opportunities, challenges and trade-offs, Geneva Association, April 2021.

[22]Takaful, micro-takaful and the foundations of inclusion”, Microinsurance Network briefing note, April 2021.

[23] The first micro-takaful insurance scheme was reportedly started in Lebanon in 1997.

[24] Insurance in poverty reduction: a case from China, Swiss Re Institute and Peking University, November 2018.

[25] Lee, I.M., J.J. Hong, and P. Born. “Insurance market development and income inequality”. The International Review of Financial Consumers 2017, p 43–53.

[26] The role of insurance in mitigating social inequality, Geneva Association, August 2020. Livelihood insurance is a concept advanced by Robert J. Shiller to cover the risk of a slow erosion in people’s earnings power over years or even decades.

[27] A2ii, Access to Insurance Initiative Annual Report 2019, Access to Insurance Initiative, 2020.

[28] Global microscope 2019 – The enabling environment for financial inclusion, The Economist Intelligence Unit, 2019.

[29]Initial assessment of insurance coverage and gaps for tackling COVID-19 impacts”, OECD, April 2020.