This is a really good point, especially in a third-world / developing countries / developing markets context.
As with most things, many of the greatest strengths of a system are often its greatest weaknesses. Namely, Bitcoins cannot be charged back (strength and weakness, making security the sole responsibility of the user.) This is a good thing in my opinion, but in the opinion of most grandparents, it is scary.
Bitcoin is more "pseudonymous" than "anonymous". Most Western countries do now have the ability to require encryption keys from users, and refusal to provide them on appropriate demand (in the case of a court order) is a crime in and of itself - so although it would be extremely DIFFICULT to link a user to a given address, the fact that the addresses and their associated transactions are indelibly written in the blockchain forever does make them an indefinite source of liability if you`re conducting dodgy or outright illegal transactions. Again, these are both strengths and weaknesses depending on who you are. I`m still relatively new to BTC, so I don`t claim to be an expert.
Returning to the original point - I think that the indelible transaction record embedded in the blockchain does make it much more possible to implement this kind of accounting, and the absence of major payment processors in many markets, coupled with the ubiquity of cell phones and data connections even in such areas, makes BTC a logical step up.
Also, a confluence of other technological changes (smart devices, data connections, rural electrification) may make BTC even more accessible in these areas. Here`s an example:
http://www.biolitestove.com/homestove/overview/
Making remote electrification (for smart devices, not for currency mining) makes BTC a more accessible payment option than ever before. This is illustrative, not intended to be a sole proof of this - point being simply that times are changing worldwide.