Diagnostic Review of Consumer Protection and Financial Literacy : Vietnam, Volume 1
In 2011, only 21.4 percent of Vietnamese adults had an account at a formal financial institution, and only 36.9 percent of all borrowers used a formal lender - both indicators are well below the regional averages in the East Asia and Pacific. The f...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Report |
| Language: | English en_US |
| Published: |
World Bank, Washington, DC
2017
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/817011483956605150/Key-findings-and-recommendations http://hdl.handle.net/10986/25876 |
| Summary: | In 2011, only 21.4 percent of Vietnamese
adults had an account at a formal financial institution, and
only 36.9 percent of all borrowers used a formal lender -
both indicators are well below the regional averages in the
East Asia and Pacific. The formal financial sector in
Vietnam is dominated by banks; however, retail lending is
still rather underdeveloped due to often flawed lending
practices and low levels of financial literacy among the
population. Vietnamese authorities and the civil society
have demonstrated a deep commitment to financial consumer
protection by continuous dialogue and persistent legislative
activities, and yet, much still needs to be achieved. The
legal and regulatory framework for consumer protection in
the financial sector, and related supervisory arrangements,
are at a nascent stage of development. This World Bank’s
diagnostic review was conducted in response to a request
from the State Bank of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam.
The banking, non-bank credit institutions, securities,
insurance, and credit reporting sectors were considered as
well as financial literacy strategies and programs. The
review was conducted by reference to the World Bank`s good
practices for financial consumer protection and provides a
detailed assessment of the institutional, legal, and
regulatory framework for financial consumer protection.
Volume I of the review summarizes the key findings and
recommendations and volume II provides a detailed comparison
with the good practices. |
|---|