Recently, financial inclusion has returned to the economic debate. It is a means by which a critical mass of poor people can access money and financial services to carry out economic activities and thus get out of poverty. Indeed, the state of poverty is a situation of persons or groups of persons deprived of minimal resources to live. This category finds itself outside the economic circuit, either because of a lack of financial resources, or because of a lack of relational resources, or because of a lack of talents or professional qualifications that can be valued on the labor market, making it possible to obtain monetary income.

The growing mass of the poor could, in the long term, be a source of social conflicts detrimental to the social balance, hence the idea of developing financial inclusion in order to encourage everyone to participate in economic activity. The World Bank1, the BCEAO and bilateral or multilateral cooperation, economists have invested in this issue. However, these numerous approaches emphasize indicators such as the rate of banking, access to credit, the role of micro-finance, the transfer of funds, all approaches that take stock of the inventory.

From this issue, we believe that it is also necessary to seek the bases of financial inclusion in economic theory. This will not only make it possible to significantly improve policies, but also to realize that in Burkina Faso, it is rather the banking system that excludes us, through the structural surpluses of liquidity that it generates for the benefit of other countries. . In these conditions what to do?

1 As a reminder, economic inclusion has been developed by different currents of economic thought2 including physiocrats, classical economists, Karl Marx and above all post-Keynesians3.

Among the physiocrats (François Quesnay) and the classics of the tradition of Adam Smith-David Ricardo, the functioning of economic activity was schematically animated by three classes, namely, landowners, entrepreneurs, workers:

· Landowners for renting their land to entrepreneurs receive in return land rent drawn from production;

· The workers receive from the contractors a natural wage which allows them to live and reproduce the work force;

· The entrepreneurs-capitalists perceive the profit of the activity. Thus, everyone would be included in the economic activity.

However, the model has its limits. Population growth leads to an increase in the demand for food. This additional demand is met by the development of marginal or less fertile land, with the consequence of a fall in profit rates and therefore economic growth in general.

2 Karl Mark was a critic of the classical school and its predecessors, but fundamentally on the economic level, he remained close to them. He distinguishes in the economic functioning mainly two classes, those who own the means of production or capitalists, from those who only own their labor power to sell to live, the workers. In the process of production, the capitalists remunerate the workers at the natural wage just good enough for the reproduction of labor power.

The difference with the global production called surplus value is monopolized by the capitalists to reinvest and derive more profit. As surplus value is concentrated in the hands of a minority of capitalists against a majority of wage-earners without sufficient purchasing power, crises of overproduction therefore ensue. The impoverishment of the workers leads them to organize themselves to seize the means of production by force or revolution. Thus, they will establish the dictatorship of the proletariat or the organization of a classless society.

It is up to the revolutionary state to organize production abundantly for all, where in the long term everyone will be satisfied according to their needs. In practice, the pessimism of Karl Marx and the classics was overcome: capitalism showed an extraordinary capacity for resilience to economic crises; conversely a century of experience of socialo-communism led to the collapse of the communist system which moved away from the promised land of Karl Max.

3 Post-Keynesians have taken up the torch of John Maynard Keynes to argue that it is less the antagonism of social classes that blocks growth, but rather the role and games of the main economic actors that are in question; this is how they distinguish

4 main speakers:

· entrepreneurs who take the initiative in the production of goods and services on the basis of an anticipated positive profit;

· bankers who have the monopoly of finance and whose major role is to finance requests for advances from entrepreneurs;

· workers who rent out their talent to entrepreneurs for production;

· the State which has a regulatory function but which must intervene in the event of a crisis which threatens the economic system.

It seems obvious that financial inclusion goes through centers of economic decisions that allow inclusion of all. Indeed, entrepreneurs do not go into debt to adopt the behavior of the worker in the Bible 4 who, after having taken the Lord's talent, buried it and handed it over to him intact on his next visit. Entrepreneurs go into debt to circulate money. If a baker obtains 500 million CFA francs from his bank, this sum will be converted into rents, equipment, salaries, in sum into income distributed throughout the economic circuit. Wage earners use the income from their work to buy back the goods produced and offered on the market.

Entrepreneurs thus make receipts, repay the credit with interest to the bankers and keep the profit for the opening of a new cycle of production.

Thus, at the heart of the economic circuit and of post-Keynesian inclusion, is the banking system, the validation of entrepreneurs' expectations of which energizes the economy; conversely, if the bank refuses the advances, it goes without saying that the economy will break down.

4 In this context, what is the situation in Burkina Faso?

Burkinabè banks participate in national investment of course; only, their game within the interbank market of the WAEMU, lets perceive additional possibilities of financing for the benefit of the national economy. Indeed, Burkina's banks stand out for their structural excess liquidity. These surpluses from Burkina Faso are valued in other WAEMU countries, paradoxically in a country under financing constraints from economic operators.

Indeed, on the day-to-day, one-week, one-month, one-quarter etc. compartments; Burkina generates excess liquidity for the benefit of other WAEMU banks. As an indication in 2020:

in the week of September 28-October 05, there is a surplus of 57 billion 009 million;

in the week of June 30 to July 6, 80. billion 800 million surpluses;

in the week of June 2 to June 8, 111 billion 800 million surpluses;

in the week from May 26 to June to June 8, 143 billion 300 million surpluses.

The table below gives an idea of the surpluses of a few weeks in Burkina between 2020 and 2017:

By reviewing the money market statistics over the 134 weeks of activity from September 2020 to October 2017, it appears that it is over only 7 weeks that Burkina is in deficit by a few billion CFA francs.

In 95% of cases, Burkinabè banks generate liquidated surpluses which benefit the growth of other countries more than in Burkina Faso. This has been a structural constant of the Burkinabè banking system for more than 40 years that the money market has existed. How can a country develop if, on a day-to-day basis, it “exports” its labor force1 and its cash for the benefit of other countries?

5 However, economic development, that is to say generalized well-being for all with the support of a transformation of mentalities, presupposes:

- economic growth supported by an increase in wealth creation year after year.

-sustained growth in turn presupposes investment, ie a transformation of liquid assets into the creation of goods and services. However, if all the national excess liquidity is not used by national investment, all growth becomes illusory or at least remains at a level below its potential.

The use of national liquidity is part of the financial inclusion dear to the BCEAO , a means by which all the actors in the process can capture monetary income by integration into economic activity. Only, in practice, the Burkinabè banking system seems to exclude or at least integrate economic operators at a level below its potential, so that growing unemployment cannot be reduced.

6 In this context, who are the winners and the losers?

The beneficiaries of the Burkinabè excess liquidity are the surplus national banks, the other WAEMU banks, the economic operators of the other WAEMU countries.

Indeed, Burkinabè banks by placing their interest-bearing excess liquidity guaranteed by the BCEAO , receive weighted average interest ranging from 2.5% to 6.5% depending on the situation, the years and the terms. This constitutes a risk-free annuity for Burkinabè banks.

The other WAEMU banks that have access to the surplus resources of the Burkina banks are increasing their intervention capacity, against of course the interest they earn from these operations. Their offers would have been less important without the contribution of the Burkinabè, and they would have made less profit. Economic operators in other WAEMU countries receive more advances from their banks; they boost their business with Burkinabè funds.

The contributions of Burkinabé liquidities increase the supply of money in their country and as a result can have the effect of either stabilizing interest rates for the benefit of foreign operators, or even lowering these rates. Conversely, the losers are Burkina's economic operators and the Burkinabè national economy in general.

Indeed, national excess liquidity neutralized for the benefit of other countries, reduces the supply of loanable funds, and as a result can lead to an increase in interest rates payable by national economic operators. This probable rise in interest rates will result in an increase in the debt burden, having repercussions on an increase in the prices of national products, and leading in turn to a loss of national competitiveness. At the national level, all economic actors lose on the exchange with the exception of national banks.

Under these conditions, a Moaaga proverb says that even if the child does not cry, he needs his mother. If we compile the number of dissertations, theses, press articles, seminars, workshops on funding constraints in Burkina Faso, we can easily have the size of at least three superimposed elephants. As Professor Bado Laurent so aptly puts it, in Burkina Faso, people die of thirst in the middle of the water; Professor Ra-Sablga Seydou Ouédraogo of the FREE AFRIK Institute to highlight the poor quality of public debate.

They are all right. Regarding money, one author said “money is like sex, something we use every day, but are ashamed to talk about”. Cameroonians, with all the humor of which they have the secret, say that money does not like noise. This shameful social posture vis-à-vis money by the human community seems to have removed money from public debate.

However, given its importance in a monetary economy as the essence of all economic activity and goods and services, there is room for debate, because Burkina's bank excess liquidity is ultimately and largely the property of depositors. , and not solely made up of bank capital. We are entitled to expect maximum use of excess liquidity for the benefit of the national economy first.

To sum up:

At the heart of economic growth is investment;

Investment is the transformation of monetary liquidity into goods and services;

the first permissive factor of investment is the release of liquidity to entrepreneurs by banks after estimating their shared risk.

In Burkina Faso, the banks certainly finance the national economy; only, the structural excess bank liquidity over the long term is not likely to promote full financial inclusion.

On the contrary, we are witnessing a sort of monetary exclusion due to the size of the amounts invested in other countries, while national economic operators suffer from it.

The choice is between:

- either letting go, letting go, which consists of enriching others and reducing growth opportunities in Burkina and increasing poverty in Burkina,

- or undertake actions of financial introversion for the benefit of the national economy.

Under these conditions, Lenin's great question returns: "What to do?" This will be the subject of our next analysis.