After the financial meltdown of 2008, the financial regulatory system and its cost have slowed the financial capacity of traditional companies to invent (Arner & co., 2016). Financial technology firms (FinTechs) have ushered in an era of digitalization in the field of financial services, separating its value chains (Alt & Co., 2018). The customers of traditional financial institutions are enthralled by the ways FinTechs are able to apply technology to flexible, adaptable, and web-based business models at low cost (Gomber & Co., 2017). FinTechs offer personalized and data-driven solutions mostly targeted towards millennials who are tech-savvy (Lee as well as Shin 2018.). They align with the current need to swiftly transition to mobile and digital spaces, which is why they are playing a major role in the evolving models of financial systems.
As 1.4 billion people are not banked across the globe, Fintech institutions can play an active part in enhancing the lives of those living in difficult conditions (Findex, 2022). Financial inclusion generally provides the same opportunities for both individuals and businesses to gain access to low-cost finance products like credit, savings, payments, and insurance (Mader, 2018). In particular, FinTechs have helped make financial services accessible to those who were restricted from or did not have access to them due to economic, geographic, social, or geographical motives (Philippon, 2019). In particular, FinTechs gain access to investments and funds for social projects via services such as crowdfunding (Nguyen and Co. 2021) and finance cooperation with no intermediaries through blockchain platforms (Scott et al. 2017a, b). They also can help vulnerable populations, including immigrants and women, through peer-to-peer lending with low-interest rates (Dorfleitner and others. 2021).

It is believed that the FinTech industry has already contributed to the growth of consumption and income in the developing world (Suri & Jack, 2016; Lashitew et al. 2019). For instance, in Africa, financial innovations like the availability and usage of smartphones were used to provide financial services that encouraged savings at the household level, which resulted in higher savings (Ouma & Co., 2017). However, in a few emerging countries, FinTechs have frequently had issues due to their inability to comprehend the local needs for customer experience (Buckley and Webster 2016) or their contributions to issues such as excessive debt and financial instability (Bateman and Webster. 2019; Van Hove and Dubus 2019).

According to Claessens et al. (2018), as FinTechs have not yet been established across the entire economic cycle, It is still too early to determine the impact they have on consumers and on macroeconomic levels. There are, however certain perceptions about the necessity of balancing the protection of consumers and financial stability with the need for innovation and competition in the financial sector (Van Loo 2018; Cambridge Centre for Alternative Finance and World Bank 2019).
In this regard, the an open bank (OB) regulations have helped in granting customers ownership of their personal data and the right to share this data with FinTechs that are regulated to gain access to new services and products (Zachariadis Ozcan 2017). Ozcan 2017, 2017). In January of 2018 The European Union (EU) launched its OB initiative with the Payment Services Directive 2 (PSD2) to boost innovation and competition in the banking sector while protecting the privacy of its clients (European Commission 2015.). In the process, a new generation of financial services are emerging which raises questions about whether people in the EU who are not served will benefit from these new competitive developments. In the article 2 below, previous research into the advantages and challenges of PSD2 and OB to increase financial inclusion has been confined to a narrow research focus. Additionally, such studies are scarce and fragmented and do not take into consideration the opinions that are shared by the European ecosystems in relation to the PSD2.
The number of people who are unbanked within the EU are significantly lower than those from developing nations, less than 4 percent (13 millions in 2021) however, this figure has more than doubled (31 millions in 2017) in the last four months (WSBI-ESBG 2022) however, there are significant variations within the region. However, in 2016 the number of customers who were underbanked was still 27% of the total number (Mastercard 2016,). In contrast to the unbanked, who have no bank accounts as well as access to services for financial transactions, the unbanked could be able to access a banking account; however, they are able to access products and services that are not available through bank services (Xu 2019).

Stakeholders from national inclusive-finance ecosystems can help establish the importance of PSD2 in encouraging inclusive finance since they are in the forefront of the transformation process and are able to spot challenges and the consequences. Understanding how the companies (and the end-users) who are affected by technology are thinking about and the development of it is crucial to understand the its potential advantages (Clohessy and Acton 2019; Garg et al. 2021). Therefore, by focusing on the Netherlands and the Netherlands, this study seeks to answer the underlying research inquiry: What are impact of the PSD2 on financial inclusion within the Netherlands? Based on the perspectives of the Dutch inclusive finance ecosystem’s participants, This study critically evaluates the PSD2’s ability to enhance the financial participation of underserved communities within the EU by providing a range of perspectives for policymakers as well as practitioners.
The article is split into six parts. The article begins with a theoretical background where the viewpoints regarding the relationship between PSD2, OB, and inclusive finance are explained. Then, the process is explained to give specifics on the process of conducting the interviews conducted with a qualitative group of stakeholders from the Dutch inclusive finance ecosystem. The results of the thematic analyses conducted during the interview are summarized in the results. The section is built on six aggregated dimensions, themes on the effects of inclusive financing from PSD2 on the users as well as initiatives of the players to improve financial inclusion ecosystems. They are examined in a selective manner during the discussion through theoretical lenses to highlight the opportunities and obstacles for a the new policies that could be positive for financial inclusion. The concluding remarks are included in the concluding section.
The study acknowledges PSD2’s lack of inclusiveness because it wasn’t designed with this goal in mind. In reality there is a chance of contributing to ongoing or worsened vulnerabilities, rather than providing financial services to a broad spectrum of populations that aren’t served. The study identifies opportunities that arise from three distinct areas: regulatory, technological, and sectoral. The study also confirms that the development of a European broad OB sector can only be created through coordination of the actions of local players along with niche-based ecosystems. This role could be played by a respected regulator like the European Banking Authority (EBA) to streamline the regulatory process and establish policies that are inclusive, while interacting with the OB users with new tools.