Explore publications.

After digital technology started spreading around economies, the hypothesis emerged that smaller but very digitally inclined firms would disrupt existing profitability levels by challenging incumbents’ market power. In this context, the banking sector would be no exception. By testing this hypothesis through a fixed effects model considering quarterly data from 2011 to 2022 for Brazilian banks, we found that from 2016 on there was a change in the behavior of intermediation revenues associated with increased competition in the sector, especially due to the performance of fintechs and digital banks. On the other hand, we observed a reversal of the slope of fee revenues, which became positive, indicating an attempt to compensate for the drop in intermediation revenues, notably an unwanted side effect. The study recommends that policymakers should watch for possible substitution effects while designing banking regulations.

Diaspora remittances constitute a major source of external finance for Zimbabwe, reflecting sustained outward migration driven by economic instability and limited domestic opportunities. Despite their growing macroeconomic significance, remittance inflows have not translated into meaningful increases in gross capital formation or sustained rural development. This study examines this apparent contradiction, conceptualised as the migration paradox, by analysing the structural, institutional, and policy constraints that limit the conversion of remittances into productive investment in rural Zimbabwe. Using a Delphi methodology, the study draws on expert consensus from policymakers, academics, development practitioners, financial sector professionals, and diaspora engagement specialists through three iterative rounds. The findings reveal strong agreement that remittances are predominantly channelled toward household consumption, social reproduction, and risk mitigation, rather than capital accumulation. Weak financial intermediation, policy inconsistency, insecure property rights, high rural investment risk, and the absence of credible diaspora investment instruments emerge as key binding constraints to gross capital formation. While remittances contribute positively to household welfare, that is, enhancing food security, education, health, and housing, their impact on productive investment and rural structural transformation remains limited. The study concludes that the remittance–capital formation gap reflects institutional and governance failures rather than migrant preferences. It argues for repositioning diaspora remittances as a complementary source of development finance through credible policy reforms, improved investment climates, and financial innovations that mobilise remittances into gross capital formation and rural development.