Conclusion
This study explored the intricate relationship between digital literacy (DL) and financial
inclusion (FI), guided by Task-Technology Fit (TTF) theory, using a cross-sectional survey of
students at Sukkur IBA University. The research was framed around five key hypotheses
examining direct and indirect pathways from DL to FI, the mediating role of access to
technology (AT), and the moderating influence of practical know-how (PK). As global
economies pivot toward digital finance, understanding how digital competencies translate into
inclusive participation becomes critical—especially in developing contexts like Pakistan, where
digital gaps persist despite increasing connectivity.1
The research successfully established that digital literacy significantly predicts both access to
technology and financial inclusion, affirming Hypotheses H₁ and H₃. Students who exhibited
higher levels of digital literacy were more likely to access digital devices and internet services
and to engage with formal financial services. This direct linkage between DL and FI reinforces
the theoretical assertion that skills in locating, evaluating, and using digital tools are instrumental
in navigating modern financial systems. Such findings lend empirical support to the broader
policy assumption that enhancing DL can bridge the inclusion gap, particularly among youth
populations who are on the cusp of economic independence2.
However, contrary to expectations, the study found that access to technology does not
significantly mediate the relationship between DL and FI (H₅). Although DL drives AT, the
possession of digital tools alone was insufficient to result in greater financial inclusion. This is a
pivotal insight. It suggests that infrastructural access—while necessary—is not a standalone
determinant of inclusive participation in the digital economy. These findings challenge
infrastructure-first paradigms and call for a balanced emphasis on behavioral capabilities and
real-world applications. The results align with global literature highlighting that even with
adequate access to digital devices, many users fail to utilize them meaningfully due to skill gaps,
confidence deficits, or contextual barriers such as trust and regulatory awareness3.
The study also rejected the hypothesis (H₂) that AT independently predicts FI, reiterating that
device ownership or connectivity, in the absence of competent usage, does not naturally translate
into financial empowerment. This finding deepens our understanding of the structural
disconnection between access and usage, echoing research from global development bodies like
the IEEE and World Bank, which have argued that technology access without literacy risks
reinforcing, rather than reducing, socio-economic inequality.
One of the more nuanced findings of the research was the role of practical know-how (PK).
While it was found to significantly impact FI directly—indicating that hands-on ability to
navigate financial technologies (e.g., setting up accounts, conducting digital payments) boosts
inclusion—it did not moderate the relationship between DL and FI (H₄ not supported). This
outcome implies that PK and DL contribute independently to financial inclusion. Rather than PK
1
“Survey Measures of Web-Oriented Digital Literacy - Eszter Hargittai, 2005.”
2
Kamoun-Chouk, “Study of Entrepreneurial Students’ Perceptions of the Impact of Digital Literacy Skills on Their
Future Career.”
3
Kloza, “Impact of the Digital Divide.”
amplifying the effect of DL, the two competencies appear to function in parallel. Digital literacy
equips individuals with foundational understanding and critical thinking, while PK ensures that
these skills can be applied in practical, real-world financial contexts.
These findings have profound implications for theory, practice, and policy. Theoretically, the
research extends the TTF framework by showcasing that while digital skills foster technology
acquisition (task–tool alignment), actual performance—in this case, financial inclusion—requires
behavioral and procedural competence. This distinction enhances our conceptual models of
digital inclusion by embedding skill-based and usage-based dimensions into traditionally access-
driven frameworks.4
Practically, the study highlights an urgent need for educational institutions and policymakers to
move beyond device-centric solutions. In contexts like Pakistan, where younger populations are
increasingly mobile-connected but lack transactional depth with formal financial systems,
educational interventions must combine digital literacy training with practical financial
education. For instance, universities could incorporate digital-financial lab modules into business
and IT curricula, where students are guided through simulated or real use of mobile banking, e-
wallets, budgeting apps, and investment platforms. This integrative approach would not only
increase financial inclusion but also boost confidence and reduce technology avoidance or errors.
From a policy standpoint, the findings call for a re-evaluation of digital development strategies.
While the provision of infrastructure remains essential—especially in underserved and rural
areas—it must be accompanied by structured learning and capacity-building initiatives.
Regulatory bodies like the State Bank of Pakistan and planning ministries could design public-
private partnerships to deploy community-based digital-financial literacy programs. Such
initiatives should target not only university students but also informal sector workers, women,
and low-income populations who are often left behind by mainstream financial systems5.
Moreover, these insights are particularly relevant in the era of fintech expansion. With the
proliferation of mobile banking apps, digital wallets, and blockchain-based financial solutions,
the ability to engage with financial technology responsibly and confidently is no longer optional
—it is a fundamental economic skill. Yet, as shown by the absence of significant moderation and
mediation in the model, one-size-fits-all strategies are unlikely to be effective. Instead, targeted
interventions that distinguish between foundational digital literacy and applied financial
behaviors are warranted6.
While the research offers valuable contributions, it is important to acknowledge its limitations.
The use of convenience sampling and a student-only population restricts the generalizability of
the findings. University students, particularly those in urban and semi-urban environments, may
exhibit higher baseline levels of digital literacy and financial awareness than the general
population. Future studies should thus expand the demographic scope to include rural,
marginalized, and working-class populations to validate and extend these results.7
4
Komlayut, “Assessing Digital Literacy Skills Using a Self-Administered Questionnaire.”
5
Ng, “Can We Teach Digital Natives Digital Literacy?”
6
“(PDF) Digital Financial Literacy and Digital Financial Inclusion in the Era of Digital Disruption.”
7
“Survey Measures of Web-Oriented Digital Literacy - Eszter Hargittai, 2005.”
Additionally, the cross-sectional nature of the study limits causal inference. Although statistical
methods like PLS-SEM offer robust path modeling, they cannot substitute for longitudinal
tracking of behavior over time. Future research might adopt a panel design to observe how
digital skills and access evolve into financial behaviors over semesters or years. Experimental
interventions, such as randomized control trials assessing the impact of training programs on
financial behavior, could also provide causal clarity8.
Finally, there is scope to explore other mediating or moderating variables that might influence
the DL–FI relationship. Psychological constructs such as digital confidence, perceived
usefulness, trust in institutions, and self-efficacy could be integrated into the model. Social
factors like peer influence, family support, and cultural attitudes toward finance may also be
significant. Incorporating these variables would provide a more holistic understanding of the
digital-financial inclusion ecosystem.9
In conclusion, this research affirms that digital literacy is a potent enabler of financial inclusion,
but its impact is neither automatic nor solely dependent on access to technology. For digital
inclusion to be meaningful and equitable, educational and policy strategies must prioritize the
development of both technical and practical competencies. Infrastructure must be coupled with
instruction, and access must be transformed into ability. Only then can digital transformation
fulfill its promise of financial inclusion and social upliftment in emerging economies. 10
8
“(PDF) The Impact of Digital Financial Literacy on Financial Behavior.”
9
“Digital Skills in 2023.”
10
“Can Digital Literacy Improve Individuals’ Incomes and Narrow the Income Gap?”
