The South African financial education ecosystem Open Access

In the wake of global crises such as the 2007–2008 financial crisis, the COVID-19 pandemic and persistent cost-of-living shocks, liberal democracies have faced growing challenges in delivering coherent, citizen-centered well-being policy responses (Plattner, 2017). Furthermore, the 2023–2025 Global Risks Reports of the World Economic Forum (WEF) highlight a growing crisis of confidence in public governance and institutional effectiveness (WEF, 2023;2024;2025). This erosion of trust is compounded by macroeconomic instability and ongoing global and domestic shocks that threaten household resilience and financial well-being. Despite the intentions of policymakers, regulators and academics to respond collectively to the consequences of these global events, disparate and disjointed interventions weaken citizen confidence. Citizens see an adhocracy, fragmented resources and an inability to accomplish coordinated, comprehensive policy execution for their well-being (Patel, 2023). These crises have brought the stability of household finances into stark prominence, underscoring the urgent need for integrated, systemic approaches to financial education and consumer protection (Atkinson, 2022). Financial literacy and consumer financial education (CFE) are increasingly recognized as strategic levers to bolster citizen well-being and rebuild democratic legitimacy through inclusive economic participation.

Socioeconomic survival and financial well-being are central cornerstones of human existence. The prioritizing of the resilience of consumers and households’ well-being through well-defined, multi-actor and systemic consumer empowerment initiatives remains crucial for stable national and global environments (Voznyak et al., 2022). One such initiative relates to CFE, which empowers national and personal agencies to achieve financial literacy and well-being (Lusardi and Mitchell, 2023; Lusardi and Messy, 2023). The enhancement of financial well-being, due to its influence on improving human conditions and mitigating inequality (Lusardi et al., 2017), has prompted international organizations such as the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development’s (OECD) International Network of Financial Education, the United Nations Secretary-General’s Special Advocate for Financial Health, the Consultative Group to Assist the Poor and the G20 to prioritize financial well-being on a global scale (OECD, 2024a). These organizations promote a systemic approach that integrates financial education, regulation and inclusion policies and practices. This system-oriented methodology necessitates a cohesive framework, akin to an ecosystem, which is used in this article and delineated in Section 3.

CFE and its role in the pathway toward financial well-being emerge from these convening ideas as a complex process involving multiple heterogeneous concepts alongside diverse, dispersed actors, yet seeking collaboration, efficiencies and success within ecosystems. The need to have a systems approach is true for many economic sectors, but even more so for the financial sector, with the entrance of open-banking platforms allowing for new financial-technological (FinTech) role-players in the banking domain, as one of many examples. By integrating financial services and technology, new financial products and services have emerged, demanding higher financial and digital literacy levels (Neelam and Bhattacharya, 2022). Financial education ecosystems, therefore, need to adapt to fast-changing economic and technological realities.

As a case in point, the European Union launched its open banking initiative in 2018, which allowed for a new wave of financial products and services (Preziuso et al., 2023) such as mobile payments, micro-investing applications, online brokers and blockchain bonds – all of these require improved financial and digital literacy from consumers as the expansion of digital platforms and open banking increases the risk of exclusion for digitally unprepared individuals and communities (Lyons and Kass-Hanna, 2022a, 2022b). The growing importance of digital financial literacy calls for financial education to be responsive to financial services’ digitalization. Yang and Zhou (2024) extend this argument by demonstrating that local FinTech development can equalize across regions, reducing entrenched geographic disparities. This dynamic environment enables broader economic inclusion and amplifies the ecosystem’s potential impact across socioeconomically lagging regions.

Mishra et al. (2024) and Ha et al. (2025) deepen this argument by framing financial education as an enabler of financial inclusion, which in turn has a compounding impact on economic participation, poverty alleviation and social equity. Ha et al. (2025) highlight critical clusters such as novel services, market transformation, stakeholder roles and flag regulatory and impact gaps. Their work supports the assertion that an ecosystem must address structural barriers alongside education to foster inclusion, particularly for marginalized populations, meaningfully. Therefore, the systemic approach to solving inequality and other developmental challenges can assist in equitable development aligned with the UN’s SDGs (Ha et al., 2025; Magwedere and Marozva, 2025).

The conceptual framing of a financial education ecosystem is further strengthened by recognizing the intersection of financial literacy, digitalization and green innovation in shaping post-pandemic financial resilience and inclusion (Urooj et al., 2025). Urooj et al., (2025) argue that a sustainability-driven financial education agenda − especially one that includes green financial behaviors, eco-conscious entrepreneurship and digital access − can serve both environmental and economic empowerment goals. Mamun and László (2025) further highlight the roles of technologies like fintech, blockchain and artificial intelligence, but also remind of the potential risks in digital finance ecosystems, such as fraud and regulatory fragmentation, complementing Urooj et al. (2025)’s green-fintech framing. The environmental perspective bolsters the argument to embed sustainability as a cross-cutting theme rather than a peripheral actor in the ecosystem domain.

Arising out of these changes, regulatory challenges have also emerged. They should not be considered in isolation, as there is insufficient disaggregated data on who is reached, impacted or excluded by current initiatives. For example, Kara et al. (2021) emphasize the need for demographic disaggregation of financial access data, which aligns with calls in this paper for more granular monitoring and evaluation within a financial education ecosystem. Capturing demographic and economic inequalities is essential to drive evidence-based ecosystem design and accountability improvement. A systemic thinking perspective is necessary for the development of a unified ecosystem.

This paper positions why an ecosystem lens can be beneficial in creating value for the diverse stakeholders in a CFE ecosystem. Given South Africa’s commitment to its constitutional imperatives for its citizens, South African policymakers such as the National Treasury (NT) agree to prioritize effective and appropriate CFE as a national policy intent. According to Atkinson (2022), this policy intent will require a broader policy toolkit that looks beyond the role of education to improve the required outcomes, but will require a more integrated approach. South Africa, in response, is developing its first National Consumer Financial Education Policy (NCFEP) and updating its national strategy to address persistent financial literacy deficits and systemic fragmentation. This approach aims to simultaneously address financial inclusion, financial literacy and financial protection while recognizing the increasing role of digitalization in the financial sector (G20, 2016; NT, 2024a). Despite its current policy efforts, South Africa’s financial education landscape remains characterized by siloed initiatives, limited stakeholder coordination and policy−practice gaps. This paper argues that a conceptual financial education ecosystem framework, grounded in the Quintuple Helix Innovation Model (5HM) (Barcellos-Paula et al., 2021), offers a novel and necessary lens to reimagine CFE as a collaborative, adaptive and value-generating system. The proposed CFE ecosystem aims to enhance policy coherence, stakeholder interdependence and financial well-being for all South Africans by integrating government, industry, academia, civil society and environmental sustainability.

The COVID-19 and cost-of-living crises reconfirmed the need for a systemic coordinated approach to improve financial literacy, as it is one of the three most significant demand-side risks facing consumers in 2024, per the OECD’s (2024b) Consumer Finance Risk Monitor. Such shocks compromise liberal democracies, anchors for global stability and humanity’s confidence that governments have constructive material and intellectual resources to prevent policy crises and slippages while fulfilling generative mandates for citizen welfare (Plattner, 2017). South Africa continues to grapple with low levels of financial literacy, as evidenced by national assessments showing stagnation since 2015 (Roberts et al., 2021). These deficits are compounded by a constrained macroeconomic environment and high levels of inequality, as presented in Section 5.1. Furthermore, fragmented CFE delivery mechanisms have also contributed to duplication, resource inefficiencies and limited stakeholder integration (FSCA, 2025). To address these low levels of financial literacy, the National Consumer Financial Education Committee (NCFEC), a centralized multistakeholder committee, was established to improve collaboration in a dispersed, fragmented landscape of concepts and actors. These systemic challenges undermine the effectiveness of these initiatives and give credence to a policy−practice gap – well-intended policies fail to translate into effective, inclusive outcomes.

Policy−practice gaps are not unique to South Africa, but is emblematic of implementation failures in complex policy environments (Najam, 1995; Sabatier and Mazmanian, 1981; Van Meter and Van Horn, 1975), where it is highlighted that in the policy delivery system there is “often imperfect correspondence between policies adopted and services actually delivered,” that is, the policy−practice gap (Van Meter and Van Horn, 1975, p. 445–446). Policy−practice gaps have also been shown to manifest in South Africa (Michel et al., 2019; Seopetsa, 2020). These policy−practice gaps could include a lack of policy and regulatory integration, the challenge of multistakeholder coordination, a lack of unified efforts, duplications, resource limitations and inefficiencies in the execution of mandates (Najam, 1995; Nilsen, 2015; Sabatier and Mazmanian, 1981; Peters, 2018; Van Meter and Van Horn, 1975).

Addressing financial education policy−practice gaps, a systemic reconfiguration of how CFE is conceptualized, governed and delivered will be required. This study, therefore, responds to this imperative by theorizing a South African CFE ecosystem underpinned by the 5HM. The proposed framework seeks to pre-empt policy−practice slippage by fostering multi-actor collaboration, aligning regulatory and educational efforts and embedding sustainability and digital inclusion as cross-cutting priorities. By integrating a theoretical framework with context-specific diagnostics, this study responds to an urgent need for a systemic, structured and adaptable model to guide South Africa’s CFE efforts toward tangible improvements in financial well-being, financial inclusion and consumer protection. The paper further contributes to the emerging literature on public policy ecosystems and offers a replicable model for other emerging countries.

The following research question (RQ) guides the exploration:

The remainder of this paper consists of the following sections: Section 3 will present the conceptual framing of the ecosystem concept, Section 4 details the research methodology, Section 5 presents the proposed South African CFE ecosystem and Section 6 concludes.

The concept of ecosystems, initially rooted in strategic business literature (Moore, 1993, 1996), has evolved into a multidisciplinary framework used to explain complex, dynamic and interdependent value creation processes across public, private and societal domains (Bogers et al., 2019; Jacobides et al., 2018; Baldwin et al., 2024; Valkokari, 2015). In its contemporary form, an ecosystem is not merely a set of interconnected entities but a network of autonomous yet mutually dependent actors co-producing outcomes toward a shared value proposition (Cobben et al., 2022).

Adner (2017, p. 40) defines an ecosystem as “the alignment structure of the multilateral set of partners that must interact for a focal value proposition to materialize,” which foregrounds the functional architecture required to realize collective outcomes. Jacobides et al. (2018, p. 2264) elaborate on the notion by stating that “an ecosystem is a set of actors with varying degrees of multilateral, non-generic complementarities that are not fully hierarchically controlled.” Jacobides et al. (2018) thus emphasize the collaborative dimension of ecosystems by examining their complementarities and regulation mechanisms. The author of this paper concurs with the definition provided by Bogers et al. (2019, p. 2), derived from synthesizing 25 years of ecosystem research, describing an ecosystem as “an interdependent network of self-interested actors jointly creating value.” Their definition is sufficiently broad to encompass any ecosystem type, emphasizing the interconnectedness among ecosystem participants aimed at collective value generation and acknowledging the individual self-interests of the individuals involved.

These definitions acknowledge that systems are merging and developing, necessitating a more comprehensive, systemic approach (Atluri and Dietz, 2023), hence needing an enhanced ecosystem perspective. A systemic thinking perspective is necessary for the development of the ecosystem. The systemic approach conveys that a holistic view of addressing societal issues is superior to a singular, linear policy method. The OECD’s stance in its New Approaches to Economic Challenges report (OECD, 2017) underscores the necessity for models that incorporate real-world social dynamics and intricate decision-making processes (Hynes et al., 2020). Weber and Hine (2015) suggest that attention should shift from perceiving ecosystems as platforms to examining them as frameworks of relationships among interacting entities. Consequently, ecosystems are in a state of dynamic evolution due to interactions among ecosystem participants and should not be viewed through a deterministic or linear lens (Wallner and Menrad, 2011). Moreover, the ecosystem may comprise networks of many enterprises and individuals engaging through diverse interaction mechanisms (Valkokari, 2015). Recent studies have furthermore highlighted the ecosystem’s applicability beyond private-sector innovation. Sahamies and Anttiroiko (2024), for example, document how the city of Espoo in Finland operationalized an ecosystem model to coordinate public service delivery across digital platforms, universities, nonprofit organizations and start-ups. Trischler et al. (2023) argue that an “ecosystemic reframing” of public service logic is necessary to adequately capture modern service systems’ co-creative dynamics. These developments echo the OECD’s call for “systems thinking” in public governance to address interconnected policy problems (OECD, 2017; Hynes et al., 2020), such as those applicable in the CFE landscape.

In alignment with the systems approach, it is necessary to acknowledge that numerous potential stakeholders or actors may participate in an ecosystem. The 5HM (Barcellos-Paula et al., 2021; Kholiavko et al., 2021) is used here to structure the ecosystem participation. The 5HM integrates academia (researchers), industry (funders and CFE practitioners), government (policymakers, regulators, etc.), civil society (beneficiaries of CFE initiatives) and the natural environment into a comprehensive innovation system. Moreover, the stakeholders, using frameworks referenced in this study and others, will engage within the CFE ecosystem based on the principles of frugal, pathfinding innovation (Albert, 2019) to attain coherence and sustainability in the long run. This innovation will facilitate a coordinated engagement of a broader array of stakeholders beyond the end-users. The 5HM’s relevance, therefore, lies in its normative orientation toward sustainability and inclusive development, both central tenets of a financial education policy agenda. Within the 5HM, ecosystem success is contingent upon three interrelated dimensions (Bogers et al., 2019): self-interest, interdependence and structure.

Starting with self-interest, Bogers et al. (2019) emphasize value creation, drawing from Adner (2017), who posited that ecosystems have heightened awareness and directed attention toward novel value production and value capture models. Baldwin et al. (2024) assert that ecosystems present novel chances for value creation and the ecosystem’s members (or actors) will contribute to a central value proposition, irrespective of their self-interest, due to the potential benefits of collaboration. Consequently, each actor should derive greater benefits from engaging in the ecosystem rather than remaining isolated. The ecosystem perspective on value creation encompasses a broader scope than, for instance, the seminal Porter’s (1980) value system, as it includes a greater array of participants beyond the conventional business and supplier networks (Jacobides et al., 2018). This study aligns the value proposition of the CFE ecosystem with the policy objective of enhancing financial well-being.

These self-interests, however, are supported by a degree of interdependence among the participants. Baldwin et al. (2024) assess interdependence by examining the autonomy of actors, seeing them as independent organizations but also acknowledging their complementary contributions to a central value proposition. Bogers et al. (2019) delineate the three forms of interdependence as cooperative, competitive or coopetitive interdependence. Cooperative interdependence denotes a scenario where essential participants possess complementary pre-existing ties that facilitate collaboration, enabling them to attain a more substantial outcome collectively. Conversely, competitive interdependence denotes rivalry among participants, wherein one achieves greater success than the others. Nonetheless, collectively, they would be more advantageous if they collaborated despite the competitive undertone. Finally, coopetitive interdependence denotes a scenario where ecosystems necessitate collaborative efforts to generate value collectively. Nevertheless, the value creation may simultaneously hinge on competition, such as for market share among the participants. The ecosystem may necessitate collaboration and rivalry to realize the central value proposition, considering the independence of the participants and the synergistic methods through which they might participate.

The dependency among the participants will also rely on the ecosystem’s structure. Adner (2017) proposes two perspectives on ecosystems: ecosystem-as-affiliation and ecosystem-as-structure. Individuals who perceive an ecosystem as an affiliation regard ecosystems as communities of interconnected actors delineated by their networks and platform associations, thereby emphasizing the actor relationships and networks. Conversely, an ecosystem-as-structure emphasizes the activities, governance and outcomes. Ecosystems may exhibit varied typologies based on the positioning of the value offer. This will ascertain who should be integrated into the ecosystem, their appropriate placement and their contributions.

Nevertheless, due to the variety of potential participants with distinct power structures, the governance framework of the ecosystem must also be considered. While numerous players may seek to engage in an ecosystem, the governance framework will dictate membership, participation regulations and the characteristics of standards and interfaces (e.g. open versus closed) (Jacobides et al., 2018). Cobben et al. (2022) characterize governance mechanisms as “orchestration,” particularly in contexts where a central institution (e.g. a sponsoring organization or regulatory body) directs and uses governance mechanisms to synchronize actors, mitigate opportunistic behavior or actualize the collective value proposition. The governance structure must delineate “who,” “what” and “how” an ecosystem is managed to secure the commitment of all participants and ensure that their interconnection fosters rather than obstructs the intended value creation.

In summary, when conceptualizing an ecosystem, it is essential to identify the value proposition, the activities necessary to realize the value proposition, the stakeholders that will support the ecosystem and their positioning within the ecosystem structure, and finally, the governance framework that will direct engagement and collaboration.

The study’s methodology is to develop an integrated conceptual framework informed by a literature review and related source documents (Chen et al., 2015). The conceptual framework is a knowledge heuristic with a simplified representation of the system’s attributes. This may be compiled from literature and grey sources (Hynes et al., 2020) and, as the core of this paper, is presented and discussed in Section 5. The approach toward populating the CFE ecosystem will be similar to what Alexander et al. (2018) refer to as a stepwise exercise of “zooming out” to describe the multiperspective view of the ecosystem. According to Alexander et al. (2018), a similar approach to oscillating foci (as per Chandler and Vargo, 2011) will be applied herein to explore the different components and elements at the various levels of aggregation.

“Scoping” is used to provide core tenets of the domain under discussion, but based on the methodology chosen for this paper, the methodology, like the terminology, is folded into the impetus of the paper, namely, Section 5. This paper draws from the broadened concept of Jaakkola (2020), who demarcates conceptual papers from field-based ones. According to Jaakkola (2020), conceptual papers use many concepts, literature streams and theories that serve distinct functions. For this study, policy documents, legislation and academic literature were the primary data sources used to populate the proposed conceptual framework. The framework is underpinned by systems thinking embedded in ecosystem literature.

Jaakkola (2020) proposes four approaches to conceptual articles: theory synthesis, adaptation, typology and model. Research papers on model creation aim to establish a framework that forecasts concept interactions. A conceptual model delineates an entity, specifically the CFE ecosystem, and highlights concerns that warrant consideration in the analysis. This study examines the structure and interrelationships of the 5HM within the CFE ecosystem to pre-empt potential gaps in policy implementation. The ecosystem serves as a basis for an integrated and effective governance of the CFE landscape to fulfill the policy objective of enhanced financial well-being.

Given that this paper is, in essence, both conceptual and model-building, the specific methodology arrived at is the writing up of a conceptual framework that is in line with providing an analytical starting point for future work on mechanisms toward financial well-being. Hynes et al. (2020) state that for a model to be built, it first requires “a conceptual skeleton,” which demarcates the borderlines and parameters to give scope or precision to the skeleton while still attending to the attributes within the skeleton and their interrelationships. As such, the conceptual skeleton provides some outer precincts to pinpoint the initial limits of the model or idea and provides the constituents that will be dynamically at play within the limits, thereby also suggesting that the skeleton, such as natural ones, may grow and change, as the model and ideas mature. Hence, the data gathered and analyzed are conceptually based, and no separate empirical process was followed as with many other studies. Therefore, the methods for this paper are embedded in the conceptual framing in line with an approach used by conceptual papers as argued by Jaakkola (2020) and Williamson et al. (2020), who, while using the term “conceptual mapping,” also set out the constituents of what this author calls a conceptual skeleton.

A qualitative descriptive approach was applied to populate the theorized conceptual framework (Sandelowski, 2000, 2010). Qualitative descriptive studies produce data regarding the “who, what, and where of events or experiences” (Kim et al., 2017; Sandelowski, 2000). Following these notions, the main components of the ecosystem need to be explicitly described and theorized. A close description allows for policy−practice gaps to be accurately understood. Based on a systematic review of qualitative descriptive study characteristics, Kim et al. (2017) identify design features and approaches pertinent to such investigations. The phenomenon is initially analyzed in its natural state, providing an unadulterated description of “what is” without manipulation or testing. Characteristics also allow for data collection methodologies to vary, encompassing interviews, focus groups and document analysis as some of the most prevalent techniques. A document analysis was conducted for this paper. Purposeful sampling procedures are used where appropriate. Given the chronological evolution of the CFE landscape, purposive sampling was applied based on chronology. Therefore, the discussion focuses on the key events, policy documents or legislative initiatives since the South African government purposefully started with a financial sector reform, which encapsulates financial literacy, CFE and financial well-being.

Furthermore, qualitative content analysis is a prevalent method for data analysis; nevertheless, thematic analysis is also widely used. In this paper, a thematic analysis was followed to align the development of the CFE ecosystem with policy−practice gaps that could support the next phase of reform in South Africa. Finally, the data representation should be clear and organized logically to ensure comprehensibility for the reader. The article has selected and followed these five methods.

A well-designed CFE ecosystem should be built on a clear understanding of the CFE and related policies’ objectives, which must be embedded in a coherent framework. To effectively promote financial literacy, these policies must be supported by detailed implementation plans that foster coordination and collaboration among the diverse stakeholders in the CFE landscape. Additionally, it is essential to establish mechanisms for monitoring and evaluating the progress of these strategies. Considering this, the ecosystem must be clearly defined to deepen its theorization.

The OECD (2005, p. 13), as a global standard setter, defines CFE as “the process by which financial consumers/investors improve their understanding of financial products, concepts, and risks and, through information, instruction and/or objective advice, develop the skills and confidence to become more aware of financial risks and opportunities, to make informed choices, to know where to go for help, and to take other effective actions to improve their financial well-being.” This definition aligns with the FSCA’s (2025:2) definition of CFE that CFE means “the process by which financial consumers improve their understanding of financial products, financial product providers, financial services, financial instruction and the like, aim to develop the skills and confidence to become more aware of financial risks and opportunities; make informed financial decisions; manage their financial affairs more sustainably; know where to go for financial assistance and recourse; or take other effective actions to improve their financial well-being and the financial well-being of those under their responsibility.”

Informed by these definitions, the following key attributes form the baseline of the ecosystem as portrayed in Figure 3, as this underpins the collective efforts of all involved ^[1]: it is a process over time[1], that covers a broad scope of content[2] that will result in high levels of financial literacy[3] to provide knowledge and understanding and develop skills in the personal finance domain as well as familiarity with discourse measures through the various ombud schemes; has different levels of engagement[4] ranging from the provision of information, instruction or advice across different modalities, that is, face-to-face, online or blended that will result in high levels of financial well-being[5].

Having established the baseline, using the paper’s focus on descriptive methodology, the following sections will “zoom out” to describe the various ecosystem components (as identified in Section 3) of the South African CFE ecosystem that could pre-empt possible policy−practice gaps.

Given that the consumer [6] is at the heart of the ecosystem, this section will touch on the state of the financial well-being of South African consumers, being the critical outcome of CFE, as well as the main success factors of the envisaged ecosystem. Financial well-being could be broadly or narrowly interpreted (Brüggen et al., 2017; Mahendru et al., 2022; OECD, 2024c), and a summary of some of the most prominent indicators will be presented. However, before focusing on the consumer, it is important to take note of the macroeconomic environment in which these consumers were exposed to the context of the problem at hand.

One of the aims of CFE is to assist consumers in improving their understanding of risks and how to mitigate them. The global macro-environment presents challenges that consumers cannot control but can prepare for to allow them to become more financially resilient. Unfortunately, South Africa, as a macro-environment, has presented several challenges that will not be resolved soon. For example, South Africa is affected by national and international crises. National challenges include an increase in the number of civil unrests, escalating unemployment, a surge in the cost of living and an energy crisis that resulted in “load shedding” (a term referring to sharing the available electricity amongst businesses and people through a schedule as the national energy provider cannot supply enough energy to service the demand), floods and droughts. South Africa was also massively affected by COVID-19 and stringent national lockdowns. The impact of the Israel−Palestine and Russia−Ukraine wars and the new USA tariff dispensation aggravated the already negative political economy. These challenges contributed to higher consumer price inflation (CPI), rising interest rates and insufficient economic growth to fulfill the growing demand for jobs. These challenges all contributed to sticky high levels of unemployment and poverty (NT, 2024a: 1).

Moving on to the financial well-being of consumers from a micro-perspective, it is evident from the previous discussion that the South African economic and consumer finance environments were experiencing pre-existing strain before the COVID-19 pandemic, although the latter aggravated the situation. However, some improvements post-COVID-19 occurred, as indicated by two national surveys. According to Deloitte’s Financial Well-being Index (Deloitte, 2024) and the Momentum/Unisa Household Financial Wellness Index (Poalses et al., 2024), South Africans recovered to pre-COVID levels; however, not back to where it was in 2018. These indices indicate that the recovery is partial and cautious due to the sticky low levels of financial literacy. In contrast to the low levels of financial literacy, consumers are overconfident in their estimation of their financial literacy, which complicates their participation in CFE programmes despite evident needs. This misalignment between self-perception and actual knowledge hampers effective education efforts. This area is of great concern as financial illiteracy is one of the three most significant demand-side risks per the OECD’s Consumer Finance Risk Monitor (OECD, 2024b).

In summary, household finances are precarious and influenced by a challenging macroeconomic environment, low savings rates, high debt levels and stagnant wealth accumulation, all contributing to lower levels of financial well-being. Despite some recovery indicators, significant issues persist, including rising living costs, over-indebtedness and a need for improved financial literacy. By zooming out, it is evident that a systemic approach to solving these challenges is required. This systematic approach can be achieved through improved collaboration across the CFE ecosystem that should recognize and address the state of household finances in South Africa through an integrated, informed and empathetic approach.

Tasked with implementing the NCFEP and, therefore, being the custodian of the South African CFE ecosystem, the NCFEC was established as a multistakeholder and centrally coordinated committee. In terms of its mandate, as indicated in Figure 1, the NCFEC has representatives from several of the 5HM’s actors[6]: the government, industry and academia. The current membership structure of the NCFEC is structured as follows: the National Treasury (NT) chairs with the secretarial support of the FSCA. Additional members include other government departments, government agencies, ombuds, regulators, industry associations, nonprofit organizations and academia. NCFEC has 26 organizations represented across the various 5HM spheres. For purposes of the CFE ecosystem, these actors can further be divided between policymakers and policy implementers (Michel et al., 2019). However, some may fall into both categories.

In terms of its membership structure, the NCFEC was a voluntary body. However, since August 2024, it has become a statutory body, a formal working group of the Financial System Council of Regulators. The Financial System Council of Regulators is a high-level forum mandated to facilitate cooperation and coordination among a range of institutions with an interest in the financial sector. The Director-General of the National Treasury chairs the Council. Also, it comprises the chief executive officers of the South African Reserve Bank (SARB), the FSCA and the NCR, together with senior representatives of the Department of Trade and Industry, the Department of Health, the Council of Medical Schemes, the Financial Intelligence Centre, the National Consumer Commission, the Competition Commission, the SARB, the Deputy Governor responsible for financial stability matters and any organ of state or other organization that the Minister of Finance may determine.

The membership was structured in such a way as to allow private sector participation [7] through industry associations and not direct membership by the financial service providers (FSPs). This decision was made to preclude potential or perceived coalition by FSPs. Furthermore, given the mix between regulators and regulated entities, power dynamics may evolve, which should be catered to in the engagement rules. Therefore, the NCFEC has drafted a Terms of Reference that describes membership and participation rights to level the playing field. The one group of the 5HM actors currently not directly represented at the NCFEC is the civil society. The goal is to get indirect representation for civil society through labor representatives, NGOs and other community representatives, but full representation has not been realized yet. This aligns with what Seopetsa (2020) identified as one of the more prominent issues in the policy−practice gap in South Africa – the government’s inability to involve the public remains an area of concern that could threaten the success of the national FE policy.

The underlying structure underpinning the South African CFE ecosystem is, therefore, what Adner (2017) refers to as an ecosystem-as-structure (see Section 3), as the value contribution toward participation is the overall improvement of financial well-being – something an institution cannot achieve on its own but needs to perform in a manner that will unlock value for the individual but also for the collective.

The third component to be discussed is the potential self-interests of its actors [8], starting with the South African government. The South African fiscal state is highly constrained as the government faces high debt service costs and a tax gap (NT, 2025), limiting its ability to fund social programs effectively. The limited funding impacts its capacity to support CFE initiatives as part of the NCFEC’s struggles, as limited funds are available to solve many development challenges. Policy and regulatory pathways are key to implementing integrated consumer protection legislation and policies that directly influence consumers’ financial well-being. Therefore, the South African government recognizes the importance of financial literacy and the need for policy integration to ensure success for the CFE ecosystem. The value created through the higher levels of financial well-being will have personal, institutional and societal benefits for the country and its citizens.

One of the first actions of the newly established NCFEC was to publish the first National Consumer Financial Education Strategy (NCFES) for South Africa in 2013. The 2013 NCFES confirmed the need for a dedicated focus on CFE as an empowerment tool with the vision to “increase the financial capability and thereby the financial well-being of all South Africans” (NT, 2013). NT is drafting an NCFEP to incorporate new digital financial literacy and financial well-being trends. Informed by the new NCFEP, the NCFEC will be tasked to update the NCFES. Although the new NCFEP has not yet been published, NCFEC members have consulted thereon, and Figure 2 presents the draft national strategy priorities.

The new policy will support the original CFE objective regarding the first pillar: empowering individuals and households. However, the scope of the policy framework has also been expanded to include the financial capability needs of small and medium business owners, a target audience highly relevant in the South African context, given the high unemployment numbers, which forced the need for self-employment through entrepreneurship. The third pillar also aligns with one of the cross-cutting themes suggested by the OECD (2024c), which discusses digitalization. With the digitalization of the financial sector and the bigger economy, the need for digital financial literacy has also increased, which is reflected in the policy priorities. The need for systemic collaboration and coordination among all stakeholders and, very importantly, for an evidence-based approach through the monitoring and evaluation of CFE initiatives underpin the three key pillars (NT, 2024a).

Along with enhancing financial well-being, consumer protection and financial inclusion are related policy areas (Panakaje et al., 2023; Reddy et al., 2024). Setting the scene, the NT published a policy document entitled “A Safer Financial Sector to Serve South Africa Better” (NT, 2011). In terms of the new approach, South Africa has moved to a twin-peak system of financial regulation to improve regulatory integration and coordination and achieve four policy objectives: financial stability, consumer protection, access to financial services and combating financial crime. Two regulators were established: the SARB, the prudential regulator and the FSCA, the market conduct authority. In addition, NT will oversee the financial inclusion pathway with other stakeholders. Enforcement agencies will lead the fight against financial crime. New legislation, such as the FSRA and CoFI Bill, has also been introduced. In addition to the NCFEP, further developments in the trilogy approach to consumer empowerment include the publication of two additional policy documents, namely An inclusive financial sector for all (NT, 2023) and A simpler, stronger financial sector ombud system (NT, 2024d), signaling the policy intent in the financial inclusion domain and redress environment. In line with the trilogy approach toward consumer protection, the financial inclusion policy paper suggests many areas for CFE by providing adequate and transparent product information that will assist consumers in selecting an appropriate financial product to address their needs. The new ombud system policy document addresses another very topical CFE domain. This confirms the government’s integrated approach toward consumer empowerment.

Given the fiscal constraints, but also aligned to the transformative policy agenda of the new post-apartheid government, the new government was keen to transform the South African economy, including the financial sector. The Financial Sector Charter came into effect to achieve transformation in January 2004 to support the Broad-Based Black Economic Empowerment Act 53 of 2003 (B-BBEE Act), which is underpinned by the overall policy framework for broad-based black economic empowerment (B-BBEE) (FSCA, 2022). In 2012, the financial sector agreed on the Financial Sector Code (FSC) to further operationalize the transformation agenda. In terms of the FSC, the Financial Sector Transformation Council (FSTC) published Guidance Note 500 (GN500), which describes which activities are eligible for recognition for the B-BBEE scorecard – a scorecard indicative of the transformation status of the service provider, which has several legal and other implications. The FSC requirements allow access to private funding to assist the South African government address the financial illiteracy problem in South Africa. The FSC, however, places a high compliance burden on regulated financial services institutions that provide CFE. However, it also constrains the FSPs regarding marketing, with zero product alignment allowed. Thus, the FSPs are tasked with providing brand-agnostic CFE, so their business imperative to participate in CFE initiatives is severely limited. However, many FSPs incorporated the challenge into their corporate social responsibilities. Through that reporting, they can still align their business value propositions to the offering of CFE and get the business imperatives, albeit through an alternative route.

Over and above the FSC compliance burden, the FSCA’s proposed market conduct standards will also increase the implementation costs of CFE initiatives. The FSCA is mandated through the FSRA to promote financial awareness and financial literacy among South Africans (FSCA, 2025). The FSRA further gives the FSCA the power to issue conduct standards as and when required. Conduct standards will be binding on regulated financial services providers. Following previous concept publications, the FSCA (2025) published the Requirements for financial institutions providing financial education initiatives. These new conduct standards should assist in improving the quality and scope of CFE initiatives, which are in the interest of many stakeholders, but will come at a high compliance cost for the industry.

CFE providers participate in national initiatives such as the Money Smart Week South Africa (MSWSA) campaign to reduce development costs and increase research and impact. CFE providers are invited to participate in a week-long awareness campaign whereby their activities are included in a national showcase on a national website, free of charge. Through the collective effort of NCFEC, regulated and nonregulated CFE providers benefit from various media campaigns and a collective report where their efforts toward national building and addressing the financial illiteracy challenge are widely recognized. In addition to the exposure, the CFE providers benefit from collaboration with other parties, a topic that will be further addressed in Section 5.4.

Returning to the value creation goal of the ecosystem while also being cognizant of the actors’ self-interest, there is a need to reduce the duplication of efforts as another attempt to bridge the policy−practice gap. The duplication of efforts results in inefficiencies, wastage of funds and the utilization of unnecessary resources. As a benchmark for what should be included in CFE programs, several financial literacy competency frameworks have been developed worldwide. South Africa also followed suit to support the implementation of the 2013 NCFES, with the Financial Services Board (FSB) (now the FSCA) publishing the first financial literacy competency framework in 2014 (FSB, 2016). The purpose of the competency framework is to guide the CFE initiative content to be aligned with the competency standards. However, given the strong influence of the FSC and, therefore, the clustering of CFE beneficiaries to the lower income categories, there seems to be a lot of duplication by content developers with limited sharing of resources.

In recent years, NCFEC members have started to collaborate on implementing joint initiatives. Still, no central hub of content can act as a repository of good-quality CFE content. Individual service providers spend a lot of financial and other resources to develop their content – as a case in point, the most recent MSWSA evaluation report indicated that topics such as budgeting, saving and investing were covered by most participants, with topics such as taxation and the two-pot retirement systems only being covered by two of the participants. However, it affects many consumers (Confluence, 2024). Given the expertise of the NCFEC members across several financial literacy competency areas, it allows cooperation to update the South African competency framework to be relevant to the latest financial literacy needs, including digital financial literacy, through expert input. The collective can benefit from their expertise, but could provide a more comprehensive intervention in updating the national competency framework through cooperation. Collaboration with the private sector is thus required to make any inroads toward solving financial well-being.

Section 5.3 briefly discussed some of the significant policy and legislative efforts the South African government has used to make South Africa’s financial sector safer and more inclusive. These efforts require high levels of collaboration across many departments and other stakeholders to ensure policy integration across the financial sector landscape. Given that many of these policy and legislative interventions have occurred in the last few years, it is too early to determine whether they will be successful. Still, there seems to be a concerted effort to ensure integration as far as possible. Hence, this paper has also emphasized the policy−practice gap.

The coordinated vision of the NCFEC was envisaged to be achieved through a multistakeholder approach that is centrally coordinated to ensure the active involvement and cooperation of all. This cooperation will allow for coopetitive interdependence whereby the collaborative efforts will allow for bigger reach and impact by the collective, but will also allow for individual members to “compete” for market share (as CFE and financial inclusion are closely linked as previously discussed) and be seen as a thought leader by its peers through innovative implementation practices. It also allows for improving practices through the open exchange of knowledge on what works and what does not (at least in theory).

However, the MSWSA campaign is one example of the NCFEC’s achievement of cooperative interdependence. One of the biggest challenges the NCFEC has experienced thus far is the coordination of targeted interventions. Through engagement with the broader ecosystem members, including government bodies, financial service providers, industry associations, schools and universities, to name a few, the NCFEC embarked on the MSWSA initiative to gauge who is engaged in CFE. This initiative to identify potential collaborations has grown from the pilot implementation in 2018 of 48 participants to more than 75 participants in 2024. Through this concerted effort by the NCFEC, almost 40 million people were reached through the campaign in 2024 (Confluence, 2024).

The NCFEC has made significant inroads in coordinating the national CFE campaign to conduct a quasi-stock take to identify all possible CFE service providers that should be considered in their coordination efforts. However, given the low levels of financial literacy, as already indicated, more needs to be done. The NCFEC, therefore, supports the ecosystem-by-structure (as discussed in Section 3) and recognizes that interdependence can have different qualities at different times. With initiatives such as MSWSA, the aspiration is to be aware of these non-FSC groups to provide the NCFEC with a 360° view of the CFE landscape. This limitation indicates that several additional actors could potentially participate in the ecosystem but are currently omitted. However, the ecosystem does allow for the autonomy of the individual members, mitigates power relationships and provides a pathway for contributions to the central purpose of the ecosystem – the sound financial well-being of all South African consumers.

Section 5 discussed the various CFE efforts guided by various OECD recommendations, the 5HM and essential definitions underpinned by the fundamental components of an ecosystem, as outlined in Section 3. This section will now examine the construction of a conceptual framework for the South African CFE ecosystem, considering potential policy−practice gaps as the government prepares to unveil a new CFE policy. The proposed conceptual framework is presented as a descriptively theorized contribution in Figure 3.

Section 5.1 commenced with the planned outcome of the ecosystem, addressing the policy objective of attaining elevated levels of financial well-being [5]. It is evident from the discussion that the financial well-being of most South Africans is suboptimal, characterized by excessive indebtedness, minimal savings and difficulties in meeting basic needs, exacerbated by a challenging macroeconomic environment marked by high inflation and interest rates, coupled with low economic growth and limited employment opportunities. As noted, inadequate financial well-being is reflected in diminished financial literacy [3], an issue that has remained unaddressed since the inaugural national baseline survey in 2010.

The South African government has implemented policy and legal measures [9] to enhance consumer safety and protection, as detailed in Section 5.3. The reform of the financial industry has required a more cohesive strategy for consumer protection, financial inclusion and CFE. The reform has resulted in multiple policy pronouncements that explicitly convey the comprehensive approach. The policy overhaul produced a new regulatory framework, the Twin Peaks Model. The new regulatory framework has consolidated multiple distinct components into a single piece of law, specifically the FSRA. A second extensive legislative measure, the CoFI Bill, is presently undergoing evaluation and will further aid in standardizing the statutory framework.

In addition to the official legislative modifications, the FSCA has recently released conduct rules for CFE, marking the commencement of a regulated framework applicable to all financial institutions engaged in CFE efforts. Financial institutions must report on their governance structures that supervise the design and execution of CFE activities as per the specified conduct criteria. They must also contemplate the formal design and development methodologies [4]. The location and logistics pertinent to the execution must also be considered. Moreover, monitoring and evaluating [9] their initiatives have become imperative, as it is essential to demonstrate the efficacy or impact of these initiatives. The behavior guidelines impose rigorous restrictions on marketing and branding to maintain the “purity” of the CFE offered. Consequently, these supplementary criteria impose an increased compliance burden on regulated entities. However, they are expected to facilitate more effective and suitable CFE in the future. These requirements align with the transformative criteria. Per the conduct standard, GN500 delineates prescriptions for the target audience’s demographics to rectify the historical disparities prevalent in the country [2;4].

The South African government acknowledged the significance of financial literacy in attaining financial well-being, leading to the establishment of the NCFEC in 2012 to oversee the execution of CFE projects in South Africa. The governance and membership structure [6] of the NCFEC is detailed in Section 5.2. The NCFEC has faced challenges in attaining multistakeholder coordination among the diverse 5HM stakeholders, as these entities possess self-interests that must be acknowledged despite the ecosystem’s potential to generate greater value for them collectively than they could realize independently. Despite this hurdle, the NCFEC has attained notable success with the MSWSA initiative [10], now in its fifth iteration. This effort demonstrates national CFE via a focused awareness campaign that leverages the knowledge and resources of NCFEC members. The NCFEC is essential to the financial ecosystem due to its presence in government, industry and academic institutions. The NCFEC should, however, augment its membership to ensure better representation of civil society, a goal it has yet to accomplish.

Nonetheless, as outlined in the suggested conceptual framework, the diverse elements of the ecosystem are interrelated. The policy framework and the ensuing regulatory structure [9] strongly influence the substance of CFE activities [4]. These activities [4;11] must be tailored to address the beneficiaries’ CFE requirements effectively. These needs are shaped by their socioeconomic conditions and the financial resources accessible to them. These offerings are also advancing due to the impact of technology and digitalization. Consequently, CFE initiatives must evolve from the conventional notion of financial literacy to encompass the more expansive concept of digital financial literacy [3].

This paper has presented a conceptual framework for a South African CFE ecosystem that aims to bridge persistent policy−practice gaps and foster financial well-being through coordinated, inclusive stakeholder collaboration. The proposed ecosystem is framed within the 5HM and supports a transformative policy approach grounded in systemic thinking, shared value creation and sustainability. The findings significantly affect national policy coherence, institutional reform and governance strategy within South Africa’s financial education and inclusion agenda. The proposed ecosystem provides a vehicle for aligning CFE with related policy domains such as financial inclusion, consumer protection and socioeconomic transformation. This alignment is critical for achieving the objectives of national strategies supported by regulatory reforms such as the Twin Peaks model and the forthcoming NCFEP.

The study further highlights the need for a strengthened, better-governed national coordinating committee. As the custodian of CFE implementation, the NCFEC must transition from a convening platform to a dynamic, coordinating governance entity with clear accountability structures, inclusive representation and regulatory support to fulfill its systemic role effectively. This collaboration can be achieved through effective data-sharing and localized engagement, as the proposed ecosystem encourages institutionalizing bottom-up feedback loops in policy design and monitoring. The ecosystem approach further recognizes the distinct mandates and self-interests of the ecosystem actors while promoting coordinated outcomes as the stakeholders remain interdependent. Policymakers should therefore acknowledge the enabling role of non-state actors and encourage participation without compromising neutrality, transparency or compliance. Embedding an ecosystem approach into a CFE environment future-proofs the CFE policy as it provides resilience against fragmented implementation and resource duplication. It also positions the CFE system to better address emerging challenges such as digital financial literacy, demographic shifts and environmental sustainability in the long term.

A CFE ecosystem can therefore assist in pre-empting policy−practice gaps and bolster liberal democracies, which must continue to anchor global stability. A well-articulated CFE ecosystem may facilitate value generation for all stakeholders, culminating in enhanced financial literacy that promotes greater financial well-being and national prosperity. Involving the multiplicity of 5HM actors in these initiatives intends to enable the ecosystem to facilitate the delivery of suitable and effective CFE programs grounded in solid evidence generated through mutually reinforcing knowledge sharing among diverse educational providers. The paper claims that, configured in this way, the ecosystem goes beyond technocratic responses that “paper up the cracks” and facilitates more socially and politically realistic strategies. Ecosystems, as engines of innovation, are also expressions of lived democracy, moving policy beyond empty espousing of government ambition toward authentic human development and constitutional integrity. The comprehensiveness of the ecosystem conceptualizes closer attainment of complex policy objectives related to consumer protection and financial inclusion, which can enhance long-term socioeconomic resilience in conjunction with CFE.

The collaboration and interdependence among 5HM stakeholders constitute a fundamental strength of the ecosystem, enabling the collective to leverage the knowledge and resources of diverse entities, thereby reducing the duplication of efforts and maximizing resources. This collaborative emphasis does not undermine the stakeholders’ self-interest. Financially literate consumers can enhance financial inclusion by increasing product adoption and market share, thus mitigating financial vulnerability and ensuring the industry remains accountable by offering suitable products to informed consumers. The objective of mitigating financial exclusion will also be realized. Academics might gain advantages by engaging in the ecosystem by accessing advanced research possibilities related to real-world scenarios that may impact policy, a crucial performance measure for many scholars. Membership and involvement in the ecosystem can be effectively regulated through established governance mechanisms. This will address power dynamics between regulators and regulated entities, ensuring transparency in all processes to cultivate trust within the collective.

Nonetheless, the NCFEC currently excludes civil society; however, they could facilitate the connection between policy and implementation by presenting grassroots realities that must be acknowledged in the formulation and execution of these CFE efforts. These programs must be formulated not solely through a top-down method (e.g. as mandated by the GN500). Still, they should also incorporate a bottom-up strategy that originates from the genuine needs and circumstances of the intended beneficiaries of education. This collaborative relationship will eliminate isolated activities, facilitate knowledge sharing and provide a comprehensive, adaptive ecosystem that mirrors the constantly evolving landscape of the financial sector.

This initial draft of the South African CFE ecosystem allows future research to broaden the identification of stakeholders, ensuring a comprehensive representation of all CFE service providers. This study concentrated on the NCFEC as the CFE custodian; however, numerous more stakeholders may warrant consideration. Effective governance models can be examined to identify the optimal governance structure that accommodates regulated and nonregulated enterprises. This governance attempt should also consider the functions of the coordinating body, accountability systems and the influence of regulatory regulations, including the recently implemented conduct standards. Considering the 5HM foundation, diverse stakeholders’ value creation and realization methods warrant additional investigation. Incentives to attract new members to the ecosystem should also be contemplated and assessed. This research stream could also examine cross-sector cooperation to integrate nonregulated firms to guarantee equitable conditions between regulated and nonregulated entities. The extent of CFE programs across different sectors may also be examined, as well as the potential for the NCFEC’s circle of influence to evolve into a circle of interest. Finally, long-term sustainability models that tackle resource duplication and constraints and enforce objectives should be examined.

The author would like to acknowledge the critical reviews conducted by Dr Charmaine Williamson.