Central banks and governments have often presented retail central bank digital currencies as tools for financial inclusion, but recent analysis argues that CBDCs address only a narrow slice of the problems that actually keep people outside the formal financial system. In that view, treating a retail CBDC as a necessary solution risks overstating what the technology can achieve while understating the trade-offs it introduces.
The assessment argues that many of the motivations behind CBDC development have less to do with inclusion than with control, oversight and monetary-policy transmission. Governments and central banks have explored digital currencies as public alternatives to private stablecoins and as mechanisms for more targeted welfare delivery or AML/CFT enforcement, but the report says those goals are often packaged as inclusionary even when they primarily reflect sovereign policy priorities.
Inclusion Problems Are Not Primarily Technological
A central conclusion of the analysis is that the main barriers to financial inclusion remain poverty, low financial literacy, weak digital access and deep mistrust of formal institutions. If those obstacles are not addressed directly, a new form of state-issued digital money may do little to broaden meaningful participation in financial services.
The report also warns that design features intended to make CBDCs more controllable can create new risks around privacy, adoption and system stability. Programmability and full traceability may allow more targeted transfers and tighter oversight, but they can also expand surveillance capacity and raise concerns about whether users will be free to spend funds without restrictions.
The Trade-Offs Could Be Systemic
One of the most serious concerns is bank disintermediation. The analysis says a retail CBDC could pull deposits out of commercial banks during moments of stress, weakening funding bases and increasing the risk of tighter credit supply during downturns. Instead of strengthening resilience, that shift could amplify pressure on the broader economy.
The report also highlights cybersecurity and control risks, arguing that a centrally administered digital currency could become a single point of failure for the monetary system. In that framework, any serious breach or operational failure would carry consequences far beyond a single platform or payment network.
Rather than centering inclusion policy on CBDCs, the analysis points to alternatives that have already shown practical results. Mobile-money networks, interoperable instant-payment systems, targeted account programs and regulated stablecoins are described as lower-risk and more direct tools for reaching excluded users. Those systems tend to work because they are paired with agent networks, simpler interfaces and broader outreach, not because they replace the banking system with a new state-managed retail rail.
Inclusion Still Depends on Infrastructure and Trust
The broader message is that financial inclusion is more likely to improve through investment in literacy, device access, connectivity and privacy protections than through a CBDC alone. A retail digital currency may still have a role, but the analysis argues it should be treated as one instrument among many rather than as the defining solution.
For policymakers, that makes the issue less about whether a retail CBDC is technologically possible and more about whether it is the right tool for the problem being solved. Central banks that approach CBDCs as part of a wider inclusion strategy, rather than as a substitute for deeper reforms, are presented as having a better chance of expanding access without undermining trust or bank intermediation.
