I want to emphasize the word limited. Notwithstanding Adam Smith’s own reference to government intervention, the role of government must remain a limited one. If temporary market imperfections or difficult market adjustment periods give rise to the justification for relentlessly expanding the role of government, there will be a point when markets will no longer function effectively and when welfare creation will seize to advance. There is no better breeding ground for irresponsible behaviour than an environment of economic stagnation or worse, welfare decline. BIS Review 38/2005  1  There are times in history when the world economy undergoes fundamental structural change. With the rapid integration into the global economy of China and India, we are experiencing such historic change. Fundamental structural economic change invariably produces economic victims. The temptation for governments to interfere excessively with the free market is therefore particularly acute during periods when dramatic change occurs. Paradoxically, it is precisely then that the forces of the “invisible hand” are most needed to help bring about the welfare that can ultimately help absorb the negative externalities of change. If I am right that we are currently traversing such a period of historic change, it is more important than ever to ensure that government intervention in markets is limited and remains subject to continuous checks. Free markets under the rule of law, Ladies and Gentlemen, provide the optimal path to welfare creation and ultimately responsible behaviour by market participants.
This Accord has formulated the measuring tools for the monitoring of Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) that has assisted policy makers in implementing and refining strategies to assist the underserved. Immense progress has also been made in gathering accurate and timely data for financial inclusion KPIs. Traditionally, financial inclusion data has been scarce as they have depended on national user surveys. In this regard, the Global Findex has made a very significant contribution to financial inclusion policymakers and practitioners, as it is a database of more than 150,000 survey responses from more than 140 countries across the world. With the data from the Global Findex, which is updated every 3 years, we are now able to compare in a consistent manner the financial inclusion performance across countries and analyse trends over time. The availability of country performance data not only provides peer pressure that spurs action, but also provides empirical evidence on which financial inclusion policy actions are delivering the most optimal impact. The analysis of the Global Findex data has provided strong evidence that countries which adopted mobile banking outperformed those that did not. Such empirical evidence facilitates policymakers and the private sector in their drive for greater financial inclusion. Priorities for greater financial inclusion In these recent years, there has been significant progress in advancing financial inclusion across the world. According to the Global Findex, 700 million adults have gained access to formal financial services since 2011. This is indeed a significant achievement. Yet 2 billion adults today are still unbanked.