証券経済研究第121号（2023.3）

Developments in cashless payments in the
EU and the introduction of a digital euro
Jun Shirota

summary
Cashless payments in the EU have developed in recent years, although not
uniformly across regions and countries. Contactless payments are also on therise, driven by the spread and improved performance of smartphones. This has
been accompanied by a decline in the number of branches and ATMs of banks
and other financial institutions, while the development of cashless payments inthe EU has been card-led, partly due to the introduction of a cap oninterchange fee for card payments from 2015 onwards. In line with the increasein non-cash payments, the introduction of a central bank digital currency, a
digital euro, is being considered, with a decision on the implementation period
scheduled for July-September 2023.
Keywords: cashless payments, contactless payments, interchange fees, central
bank digital currency, digital euro
Table of Contents
1
2Introduction

3  Cashless payments and digital currency

Developments in cashless payments in the EU

3.1 Card payments and interchange fee rates

2.1 Cash and cashless payments in Europe
2.2

Increase in contactless payments

3.2 Introduction of a digital euro4

Conclusion

2.3 Decrease in the number of branches andATMsless payments, particularly in the Nordic

1

Introduction

countries, and, as an extension, looks ahead tothe introduction of a digital euro, a central

This paper identifies the progress of cash-bank digital currency in the euro area.

33

Developments in cashless payments in the EU and the introduction of a digital euro

Even within the EU countries, there are

ber of banks will also tend to decrease. The de-considerable disparities in the progress ofvelopment of a cashless society will also place ancashless payments between countries. As aincreased burden on banks to invest in informa-

general trend, the proportion of cash pay-tion technology（IT）. A report by the Finnish

ments is high in southern European countries,

Central Bank states that investment in digitali-

and cashless payments are not yet well devel-sation is positive for bank management in the

oped. In Germany, the centre of the EU econ-long term, as it is an investment in the future.

omy, the proportion of cash payments has traditionally been high and cashless payments
have lagged behind. Despite these circum-2

Developments in cashless
payments in the EU

stances, cashless payments are rapidly progressing in Finland and the Netherlands aseuro participants, and in Denmark and Sweden as EU member states that do not partici-

2.1． Cash and cashless payments in
Europepate in the euro. Cashless payments are alsoFirst, the current status of cashless pay-progressing in the three Baltic states thatments in Europe is clarified. Cashless pay-participate in the euro, namely Estonia, Latvia

ments are defined below as payments（settle-

and Lithuania. Thus, among the EU countries,

ments）that do not involve the use of cash.

the Southern European countries tend to

Strictly speaking, payments by cheque or

have a high proportion of cash payments andcredit card are not final settlements. This islag behind in cashless payments, while thebecause the debit from the bank account is

Nordic countries have a low proportion of

the final settlement. However, this is not a

cash payments and are making progress inquestion and payments by cheque or credit

cashless payments. The question of why cash-

card are also cashless payments.

less payments are progressing in the Nordic

On average（as of 2016）across the euro

countries and how the development of cash-

area, in terms of number of cases, 78.8% wereless payments will affect bank management isin cash, 19.1% in cards and 2.1% in others. In

first of all the focus of this paper.

terms of value, 53.8% were cash, 39% wereAs cashless payments progress, the need forcards and 7.2% were other. 1）By country, thecash decreases. As a result, the need for cash

country with the highest proportion of cash

withdrawals will also decrease, which will leadtransactions was Malta, with 92% of transac-

to a decrease in the number of bank branches

tions by number and 74% by value. Greeceand ATMs. As a precondition for this, the num-also had, in the same order, 88% and 75%,

1 ECB（2017）,p19

34

証券経済研究（％）
100

Graph 1

第121号（2023.3）

Share of cash payment at POS and P2P

90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

NumberValue（source） ECB（2020a）

Spain 87% and 68%, and Italy 86% and 68%.

from 75%（2016）to 62%（2020）, but as dis-Thus, in the south countries, the proportion ofcussed below, the increase in contactless pay-

cash transactions tended to be higher in Eu-

ments appears to have contributed to this.

ropean countries. Graph 1 shows the propor-

On the other hand, as of 2016, the country

tion of cash payments at the point of salewith the lowest proportion of cash transac-（POS）and P2P（person-to-person）in eachtions was the Netherlands, at 45% by number

country as of 2020. On average across the Eu-

and 27% by value. In the Netherlands, therozone as a whole, 73% of payments by num-proportion of cash used by households was

ber and 48% by value are cash payments, aless than half in terms of number and lessdecline of around 5 percentage points in boththan a third in terms of value. In Finland, in

number and value terms over a four-year pe-

the same order, the basic proportions were

riod. Firstly, it can be seen that the propor-

54% and 33%, slightly higher than in thetion of cash payments has decreased in the

Netherlands, but at the same basic level. The

euro area as a whole. For southern european

Baltic States, including Estonia, Latvia andcountries, the cash payment ratio also gener-

Lithuania, also had low cash ratios, especiallyally decreased in 2020 compared to 2016. In

in Estonia, which was almost at the same lev-

Greece in particular, the cash payment ratio

el as the Netherlands and Finland. 2）The Bal-in value terms fell by 13 percentage points

tic States are geographically adjacent to Fin-2 （https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/tgm/table.do?tab=table&init= 1 &language=en&pcode=tec00114&plugin=1）Estonia, Latvia
and Lithuania introduced the euro in 2011, 2014 and 2015 respectively. However, the economic level was not high, with a
GDP per capita of 81 in Estonia, 81 in Lithuania and 70 in Latvia（both indexed to the EU average of 100）.

35

Developments in cashless payments in the EU and the introduction of a digital euro

land and other Nordic countries and have aof bank accounts per capita, etc., the more dif-

lot of human interaction, which appears to

ficult it is to access financial services and thehave been influenced by Estonia and otherhigher the financial exclusion ratio. A high fi-

countries.

nancial exclusion ratio means a low cashless

As of 2020, as Graph 1 shows, the propor-

payment ratio and a high cash payment ratio.

tion of cash payments in the Netherlands has

As discussed below, this argument is valid

further decreased to 34% by number and 22%

for developing and emerging countries, but

by value. In Finland, the ratios were 35% and

not for developed countries such as Japan and

27% in the same order, and in Estonia they

Germany. However, the counter-concept toalso fell to 48% and 41%. The proportion of

the financial exclusion ratio is the financial in-

cash payments（by value）has also fallen to

clusion ratio, and it is true that the financial

25% in France and 24% in Luxembourg. It

inclusion ratio tends to be higher in Nordic

can be said that non-cash payments arecountries such as Finland and Sweden, andspreading across the euro area.

that the cashless payment ratio is higher in

Across the euro area as a whole, including

the Nordic countries.

non-cash, the average value in payment in-

The specific characteristics of cash pay-

struments（2016）is EUR 12.8 for cash, EUR

ments are, first, that the social costs of cash

36.9 for cards and approximately EUR 61.9 fortransactions are borne by the central bank‘other’. ‘Other’ includes cheques, direct debit

and commercial banks. The social costs ofand bank transfers（credit transfer）. Cashcash transactions are related to the issuancetends to be used for smaller payments, whileof banknotes and coins（including their dis-

cards and other means are used for larger

posal）and the maintenance and distribution

amounts.

of cash transaction infrastructure. The central

The ‘financial exclusion’ ratio has beenbank is responsible for the issuance and dis-highlighted as a factor that defines a high or

posal of central banknotes, but bears the

low cash payment ratio, or a high or low cash-

costs. Private commercial banks are responsi-

3

less payment ratio. ）Financial exclusion ra-

ble for cash operations at their branches, as

tios are measured by the number of bank ac-

well as the installation and maintenance ofcounts and non-cash transactions per capita.

ATMs and the costs of cash transportation.

According to the European Commission, fi-

The second of the qualities of cash transac-

nancial exclusion refers to difficulties in ac-

tions is their anonymity, an advantage highly

cessing financial services and products.

valued by consumers. Anonymity is a charac-

Therefore, specifically, the lower the number

teristic of cash that distinguishes it from other3 Jakub Gorka（2016）,p38

36

証券経済研究第121号（2023.3）

means of payment: cash transactions cannot

the main source of non-cash payments in the

be traced. For those who wish to protect theireuro area, rising from 21.6% of the total num-

anonymity, cash transactions are the best op-

ber of non-cash payments in 2000 to 49.3% intion. With credit card payments, individuals

2021. This was followed by bank transfers

can be identified, but not with cash.

（credit transfers）, which accounted for 31.9%

The third characteristic of cash transac-

of non-cash payments in 2000, but had fallen

tions is the speed of payment. Whereas credit

to 22% by 2021. This may be due to a shiftcards take time to debit a bank account, cashfrom bank transfers to card payments, as thepayments are completed instantly. Anothermaximum payment limits for credit card pay-

important factor for cash transactions is thements were raised. For debit cards（direct

fact that cash is a perceived possession anddebit）, the share was 27.5% in 2000, but fell to

can be used at any time.

20.3% in 2021. Card payments include regular

The fourth characteristic of cash transac-

debit cards（debited from bank accounts via

tions is that the costs of cash transactions are

credit companies rather than the direct type,multifaceted and depend on the position inwhich debits directly from bank accounts）,

the cash transaction, i.e. whether one is a con-which appears to have shifted towards regu-

sumer or a seller. Consumers consider cash

lar debit cards. On the other hand, cheques,transactions to be free（zero cost）, due to thethe traditional non-cash means of payment,

fact that there are no costs imposed on non-fell from 17.6% in 2000 to 1.13% in 2021.

cash transactions （e.g. costs with credit

Cheques, along with bills, are paper-based andcards）. However, this understanding is incor-

are seen to have been shunned due to therect. The price of goods and services hides

need to carry them around.

payment costs（e.g. fees on credit cards in-

However, Graph 2 is a Eurozone total, andcurred by the seller）. Thus, consumers whothere is considerable variation across coun-

pay in cash indirectly bear the costs of non-tries. First, in terms of card payments（based

cash transactions. 4）

on number of payments）, the percentage inCashless payments are making progress inEstonia fell from 67% in 2017 to 63.9% in 2021,

Europe. Graph2 shows the number and com-also in Latvia, rising from 59.7% to 62.8%, andposition（by number）of cashless（non-cash）

in Finland, falling from 63.5% to 61.6%, al-payments in the euro area. The number ofthough the percentage is still quite high.

non-cash payments increased from 35.28 bil-

These baltic sea countries are advanced inlion in 2000 to 114.18 billion in 2021. Card pay-

fintech. On the other hand, card payments

ments（credit and regular debit cards）arerose from 21.1% to 30.3% in Germany, but at a4 Jakub Gorka（2016）,p41

37

Developments in cashless payments in the EU and the introduction of a digital euro
Graph 2

Total number and composition of non-cash payment in euro area

（million）
120000（％）
60

100000

50

80000

40

60000

30

40000

20

20000

10

0

0

Total Number(le�)Card payment(right)

Credit Transfer

direct debit

chequeE-money（source） ECB, Statistical Date Warehouse（https://sdw.ecb.europa.eu/）

lower level. 5）As for debit cards, they ac-

and houses, while cards are seen to be usedcounted for 43.1%（2021）in Germany, but

for meals etc. Credit cards usually have awere rarely used in Finland and other Baltic

maximum spending limit and cannot be usedcountries. For bank transfers, the share wasfor high value purchases.

26.1 % in Germany and 32.4 % in Finland in
2021.

Recently, there has been a flurry of research on payment methods and costs in Ger-In value terms, bank transfers rose from amany and elsewhere in Europe. According toeuro area average of 91.6% in 2017 to 93.5% in

Deutsche Bundesbank, in Germany, 76.1% of

2021. On the other hand, card payments andthe 2 million payments in 2017 were cash pay-

debit cards（direct debits）accounted for only

ments and 22.8% were card payments. 6）The

1.1% and 3.7% respectively in 2021. In terms

breakdown of card payments was 14.3% forof number of payments, bank transfers ac-

girocards（in Germany, the payment account

count for only 22% on average in the euro

for everyday life is called girokonto, and cards

area, card payments for 49.3% and direct deb-

settled from this account are seen as debit

it cards for 20.3%. This means that bankcards）, 4.9% for debit cards（direct debit,

transfers are used for high value payments,

SEPA）, 2.9% for credit cards, and others 0.7%.

while credit and debit cards are used for rela-

In terms of payment method in terms of val-

tively small payments. Bank transfers areue, the proportion of non-cash payments isused for high value transactions such as cars

higher, with cash and card payments account-5 ECB（2018）,ECB（2022e）
6 Deutsche Bundesbank（2019）,p66.

38

証券経済研究第121号（2023.3）

ing for 48.3% and 48.6% respectively. The

payment, which is 1.8% of sales as a percent-breakdown of card payments is 30.1% for giro

age of turnover. On the other hand, the total

cards, 10% for debit cards and 6.9% for credit

cost of girocard payments is approximately

cards.

EUR 600 million, but 0.67% as a percentage of

According to Deutsche Bundesbank, there

turnover. Therefore, as a retailer, cash is

are three factors for cash and four for non-cheaper in terms of value, but the girocard iscash as costs of payment. In common withthe cheapest as a percentage of turnover.

cash and non-cash, the first factor is time at

One of the reasons behind the decline in

the cashier. The time involved in payment at

cash transactions and increase in non-cash

the point of sale matters and is a labour costtransactions in Europe is the introduction of afor employees. The second factor is the back-cap on cash payments. Table 1 shows the lim-

ground factor at the point of sale（POS）:

its on cash payments in Europe. The earliest

preparing cash, organising receipts for card

cash payment cap was introduced in France

payments, preparing change, etc. In the casein 2002. In France, the ceiling for resident andof cash payments, the third factor is to organ-

non-resident traders（traders）is €3,000 andise and store the cash（e.g. in a safe）. In thefor non-resident consumers €15,000 . Outsidecase of card payments, transaction costs are

France, cash payment caps have been intro-

the third factor. The fourth cost is specific toduced relatively recently, in most cases be-

cashless payments and is terminal costs, in-tween 2011 and 2014. In Greece, it was intro-

cluding maintaining and updating software.

duced in 2011 and is €1,500 between consumers

Deutsche Bundesbank estimates the above

and entrepreneurs and €3,000 for BtoB（com-costs for cash, girocards, debit cards, credit

panies paying companies）.In Italy, introduced

cards（PIN number）and credit cards（signa-

in 2012, cash payments are only allowed up toture）: per transaction, cash costs EUR 0.24,

a flat rate of EUR 1,000 . The same applies togirocards EUR 0.33, debit cards EUR 0.34, andPortugal. In Spain, introduced in 2012, resi-

credit card（PIN number）costs EUR 0.97 anddents are only allowed to pay EUR 2,500 .

credit card（signature）EUR 1.04. However, if

With the exception of France, Greece, Italy,

this is converted into a sales ratio, cash costs

Portugal and Spain are all countries with a

1.8%, giro cards 0.67%, debit cards 0.97%,

high proportion of cash transactions, as also

credit cards（PIN number）1.7% and credit

shown in Graph 1. In countries with a highcards（signature）1.82%.

proportion of cash transactions, cash payment

In Germany, payment costs totalling approximately EUR 5.4 billion per year are in-caps are set, and, like Italy and Portugal,
these caps are as low as EUR 1 000.

curred, of which approximately EUR 3.77 bil-

The background to the introduction of cash

lion are cash payment costs, or EUR 0.24 perpayment caps in Europe has been linked to39

Developments in cashless payments in the EU and the introduction of a digital euro
Table 1Country

Cash Payment restrictions in European countries :an overview

Cash limits

Date of introduction

Reporting entities

Belgium

3000EUR

Jan-22

Bulgaria

15000BGN

Feb-22Natual persons and entrepreneurs

Czech

350000CZK

Jan-22Natual persons and entrepreneurs

Denmark

10000DKK

Jul-22Natual persons and entrepreneurs

France3000EUR

Jan-22

Residents and non-resident trader

15000EUR
GreeceNon-residents consumers

1500EUR

Jan-22

3000EUR

Payments between entrepreneur and consumer
B2B payments

Hungary

1500000HUF

Jan-22

Legal persons

Italy

1000EUR

Dec-22

Portugal

1000EUR

May-22

Slovakia

5000EUR

Jan-22Natual persons

Nov-22

Residents

15000EUR
Spain

2500EUR
15000EUR（source） Jakub Gorka（2016）p62

money laundering. 7）As already noted, a spe-less payments are made using near-field com-cial quality of cash is its anonymity. There-munication technology with a card（debit orfore, cash is more likely to be used for funds

credit card）or smartphone in your posses-

involved with crime and fraud. Against thission. In this case, a PIN（Personal Identifica-

background, cash payments have beention Number）is not required up to a certain

capped in Europe. Cash payment limits wereamount; as of 2020, in Germany, PIN entry is

introduced not only to prevent money laun-

not required up to EUR 25. In France, PIN

dering, but also to prevent tax evasion andentry is also not required up to EUR 20, but

tax avoidance. As cash transactions are notthis will be increased to EUR 30.

recorded, they were seen as easy to use fortax evasion and tax avoidance.

2.2．Increase in contactless payments

An advantage of contactless payment is thetime savings in the payment process. Contactless card payments can be made without inserting the card into a card reader. The aver-Contactless payments are increasing in line

age payment time is considered to be 10-15

with the rise in cashless payments. Contact-seconds and no identification is required. 8）

7 Jakub Gorka（2016）,p62
8 Deutsche Bundesbank（2019）,p66.

40

証券経済研究
GRAPH 3

COMPOSITION OF CARD PAYMENTS（NUMBER OF TRANSACTIONS）
Inser�ng a card in a terminal

00第121号（2023.3）

0.01

0

0

0

0

0

0.01

0

Contactless
0.01

0.01

Don't know
0.01

0.01

0

0.01

0

0

0

0
0.03

0.16
0.24
0.39

0.77

0.73

0.71

0.66

0.65

0.62

0.62

0.6

0.57

0.55

0.54

0.54

0.38

0.38

0.35

0.51

0.97
0.84
0.76
0.61

0.23

0.27

0.28

0.33

0.35

0.38

0.38

0.39

0.42

0.45

0.45

0.45

0.61

0.62

0.65

0.49

（source） ECB（2020a）

Payment is completed simply by holding theand declines with increasing age, with 0.85 forphone over the reader.

those aged 65 and over. It is still higher in the

In the euro area as a whole, the breakdown

younger age groups. By educational attain-of contactless payments by value shows that

ment, the figure is 0.75 for those with a low

35% are under €5, 29% are between €5 andlevel of education, compared with 1.32 for€10, 20% are between €10 and €15, 10% arethose with a high level of education. It ap-

between €15 and €20 and 6% are between

pears that education background correlates€20 and €25. 9）35% spend less than €5 and awith income levels and is reflected in the use

total of 65% spend less than €10, with smallof credit cards and smartphones. 10）purchases taking centre stage. Coffee or beer

When looking at contactless payments byin town is the main focus, with lunch at mostcountry, the proportion is considerably higher

the upper limit.

in the Netherlands. When looking at contact-

Looking at the demographics of those who

less payments by country（as of 2016）, theyuse contactless payments, the index is higher

amount to 9.6% of payments at the point offor men（1.11）and women（0.89）（with thesale in the Netherlands. Slovakia follows withaverage consumer in the Eurozone being in-

4.3%（EUR 25 or less）and Austria with 2.5%

dexed as 1）. By age, the index is 0.95 for（same）. On the other hand, contactless pay-those aged 18-24, 1.25 for those aged 25-39,

ments are low in countries with a high pro-

9 ECB（2017）p30
10 In this context, academic qualifications mean secondary school, high school and university degrees. In Germany, forexample, the so-called pecking order between universities is basically non-existent.

41

Developments in cashless payments in the EU and the introduction of a digital euro

portion of cash payments in Southern Europe

sons for the development of fintech and cash-- 0.5% in Spain, 0.4% in Italy and 0.3% in Por-less transactions in the Nordic countries istugal.

that labour shortages have necessitated the

Although the same data is not available as

introduction of fintech at retail checkouts andof 2021, Graph 3 shows the composition ofother points of sale. As already noted, fintech

card payments（2021）. It shows that the pro-has enabled time savings at the point of sale.

portion of contactless card payments is 77%

It is also noted that in the Nordic countries,

in Slovakia, 73% in Greece, 71% in Slovenia

snow in the winter months makes cash trans-

and 66% in Spain, and is rapidly increasing in

port difficult. However, the biggest factor ap-

southern European countries where cash pay-

pears to be that the Nordic countries arements have traditionally been the norm. Tra-

highly digitalised and the digitalisation of soci-ditional card insertion payment used to re-ety as a whole has affected the financial do-quire expensive card-reading machines, but

main.

contactless payment is seen to be increasing

Bank of Finland, the central bank of Fin-

rapidly due to the widespread use of smart-land, publishes Payment statistics annually. 11）

phones and other factors.

According to this, approximately 3 billion pay-

However, in Graph 3, more than 60% ofments were made in Finland in 2021. Of these,contactless payments are also made in thecard payments and bank transfers accounted

Netherlands and Finland. The Netherlands,

for 99%. Card payments continue to be theFinland and other Nordic countries aremain form of payment, but contactless pay-among the most cashless and fintech-ad-

ments have increased rapidly in recent years.

vanced countries in Europe. As shown in

The use of cash continues to wane, reflecting

Graph 1, the Netherlands and Finland havethe decline in cash withdrawals: in 2018, cash

the lowest proportion of cash payments. And,

withdrawals from Finnish ATMs amounted toas Table 2 below shows, the number of banks

EUR 11.4 billion, a decrease of more than 20%

in the Netherlands has decreased by about acompared to 2014. They further declined tothird since 2010. The Netherlands and Finland

EUR 6.8 billion in 2021, a 40% decrease com-also have the lowest number of bank branch-pared to 2018.

es and ATMs in Europe. Therefore, it can be

At the end of 2021, there were more thansaid that the development of cashless pay-

10.5 million payment cards in Finland（with ament and fintech will have a significant im-

population of 5.5 million）. Of these, about apact on bank management.

third have debit, credit or deferred payment

It has been pointed out that one of the rea-

11 Finland Bank（2018）,（2022）42

debit functions combined. In 2021, 10.3 million証券経済研究
GRAPH 4第121号（2023.3）

COMPOSITION OF CARD PAYMENT IN FINLAND（NUMBER,MILLION）
of which ini�ated with a chip or magne�c stripeof which contactless paymentsof which ini�ated remotely

12544
9689

18258

22124

6640
5296
3887
2914

3562
355

13514212915016250

13204837605

120061

63152

91341

101157111435

60237

55756

2020

2021

110034
90959

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

（source）Bank of Finland（2022）

cards will have contactless payment function-internet and distance communication technol-

ality and almost all cards will offer contactlessogy（distance communication）. Remote pay-

payment. Debit cards are the most central

ments reached 22.1 billion in 2021, accounting

payment method in Finland, accounting forfor 11.7% of card payments.

99% of all card payments by number and 85%
12by value in 2021. ）PSD2（The Revised Payment Services Directive）made changes to online payments

Graph 4 shows the breakdown of card pay-from September 2019 onwards. In Germany,ments in Finland. It shows that traditional

Google had already been in the payment busi-

contact payments - payments made by card

ness since June 2018, Apple since December

chips or magnetic stripes - declined from2018, Amazon since 2011, Alipay since July

129.15 billion in 2014 to 110.034 billion in 20182016 and WiChat since November 2017. PSD2

and 55.756 billion in 2021. Contactless pay-

lifted the ban on APIs from September 2019ments, on the other hand, jumped from 355

and and non-banking providers will be able tomillion in 2014 to 63,152 million in 2018, repre-

access bank account information. 13）In terms

senting 35% of all card payments. It furtherof payments, the changes currently include

increased to 11.435 billion in 2021, making it

not only the opening of bank accounts tothe centre of card payments. Remote pay-third parties. Instant payment, i.e. daily pay-ments also refer to payments that utilise thements in seconds, or in other words, in real

12 Generally, in Europe and the US, there is no fee when money is transferred by debit card through PayPal. The spread of
debit cards in Europe and the US is closely related to PayPal.
13 Deutsche Bundesbank（2019）,p55

43

Developments in cashless payments in the EU and the introduction of a digital euro

real time, is a challenge. The rapid spread ofwhich fell to 271 in 2014 and to 198 in Octobersmartphones and the increasing market share2022. Thus, there were 140 fewer banks in 12

of US and Chinese big tech giants will change

years, a 41% decrease compared to 2010. The

the way payments are made, according to

number of banks has also declined in theDeutsche Bundesbank.

Netherlands more than in Finland, from 290
in 2010 to 84 in 2022, a decline of 206 banks in

2.3．Decrease in the number of branches

12 years, also a decline of 71%. This is said toand ATMsbe due to the unification of the multiple bank-

As we have seen above, cashless payments

ing licences previously issued for Rabo banks,

and fintech are progressing in Finland andwhich are co-operative financial institutions, inother Nordic countries and the Netherlands,

the Netherlands. In any case, however, thebut we will clarify how the number of banks,

number of banks is rapidly declining in Fin-branches and ATMs is in these countries.

land and the Netherlands, where FinTech is

Table 2 shows the number of banks in Fin-

progressing.

land ,other Nordic countries, the Netherlands

The number of banks has also decreased inand the Baltic States. Denmark and Sweden

other Nordic countries outside Finland, suchare members of the EU but do not participate

as Denmark and Sweden. In Denmark, thein the euro, while the Baltic States of Estonia,

number of banks fell from 161 to 92, and in

Latvia and Lithuania have joined the EU and

Sweden from 173 to 157. Thus, a rapid decline

then the euro. The Baltic states were former

in the number of banks can be observed inmembers of the Soviet Union, but are now in-

the Nordic countries, where fintech and cash-

dependent and have close relations with theless payments are progressing. In Estonia andEurozone countries and Finland.

Latvia, the number of banks increased be-

Originally, Finland had 338 banks in 2010,
Table 2

tween 2010 and 2019. This appears to be due

Total number of credit insitutions in the northern european countries

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2021

2022

Estonia

18

17

16

31

37

39

38

36

37

40

39

40

35

Latvia

39

31

29

63

59

61

57

54

54

54

50

49

45

Lithuania

87

92

94

91

89

90

88

83

85

84

81

81

81

Finland

338

327

313

303

271

281

279

267

257

243

228

209

198

Netherlands

290

287

266

253

218

209

96

92

93

94

87

86

84

Denmark

161

161

161

161

119

113

110

100

98

98

100

94

92

Sweden

173

175

176

168

159

153

153

156

153

155

154

151

157

（Source） ECB Homepage（https://www.ecb.europa.eu/stats/ecb_statistics/escb/html/table.en.html?id=JDF_MFI_MFI_LIST）（Footnote） Data is available at the end of callender year,but only 2022 October.

44

証券経済研究
Table 3

第121号（2023.3）

The Banks in the northern european countries and Japan（＄million,%）Ranking

Tier 1 capital

Nordea Group66

32,968OP Pohjola Group

136

Saving Bank Group

AssetsCapital assets ratio

Pre-tax profit

ROE

ROA

648,128

5.09

5,609

13.2

0.67

13,597

197,852

6.87

1,281

7.55

0.52

723

1,246

14,863

8.38

102

6.64

0.56

Danske Bank78

26,199599,975

4.37

2,526

7.52

0.33

Nykredit139

13,208255,103

5.18

1,635

10.23

0.53

Jyske Bank

257

5,729

98,647

5.81

614

8.45

0.49

Swedbank Estonia

FOS

1,725

18,769

9.19

248

12.43

1.14

Luminor Bank Estonia

620

1,625

15,133

10.74

94

5.22

0.56

SEB Pank

FOS

1,051

9,023

11.65

131

10.74

1.25

FOS

982

8,522

11.53

85

8.5

0.98

MitsubishiUFJ FG

12126,440

3,053,365

4.14

12,1727.8

0.32

Sumitomo Mitsui FG

21

91,391

2,105,430

4.34

7,595

6.39

0.28

Mizuho FG

25

79,357

1,936,815

4.1

4,934

5.59

0.23

ING

40

58,773

1,081,042

5.44

7,698

9.47

0.51

Rabobank

48

46,278726,790

6.37

5,542

9.07

0.58

ABN Amro

83

24,077453,538

5.31

2,089

5.82

0.31

SEB Group105

18,626

365,512

5.1

3,414

15.1

0.77

Svenska
Handelsbanken

107

18,031

370,217

4.87

2,730

11.99

0.58

Swedbank

118

15,821

304,272

5.2

2,856

14.59

0.76

FinlandDenmark

Estonia

LatviaSwedbank Latvia
Japan

Netherland

Sweden（source） The Banker, July 2022

to the expected economic growth in thetries, the Netherlands and Japan. First, theemerging economies and the presence of for-largest Finnish bank is Nordea Group, with aeign banks. As Table 3 shows, most major

world rank of 66 and total assets of USD 648.1

banks in Estonia and Latvia are foreign-billion, followed by OP Pohjola Group, with aowned.

world rank of 136 and total assets of USD

Table 3 shows the management indicators

197.9 billion. These two banks are consideredof major banks in Finland, other Nordic coun-commercial banks; other foreign commercial

45

Developments in cashless payments in the EU and the introduction of a digital eurobanks include Danske Bank（Denmark）andthe 60-70% range. 14）The main expense items

Handelsbanken（Sweden）, but on a smaller

for Japanese banks are considered to be per-scale. The total assets of the savings banksonnel and property costs, which, in additiongroup are also small at USD 14.9 billion.

to the large number of employees, are likely

As for Dutch banks, ING is ranked 40th in
the world with total assets of USD 1.081 tril-

to be high in terms of branch costs. Computer-related costs are also significant.

lion, Rabobank is ranked 48th in the world

Nordic banks are ahead in fintech and cash-with total assets of USD 726.8 billion andless payments, but are investing heavily in

ABN Amro is also ranked 83rd with USD

IT-related investments; IT-related invest-

453.5 billion.

ments are seen as a long-term driver of bank

When comparing Nordic and Dutch banks

profitability, but a short-term drag. Trans-with their Japanese counterparts, there areforming from a bank with many branches tomarked differences in ROE. Nordea in Finlanda digitally agile bank requires a lot of effort.

has a ROE of 13.2%, Swedbank Estonia also

Nordic banks are allocating around 35% of

12.43% and SEB Group in Sweden 15.1%. Prof-

their funds to IT investments, while European

itable banks in Europe generally have ROEs

banks are allocating around 20%, with Nordicof more than 10%. In contrast, the ROEs ofbanks allocating more funds to IT invest-

Japanese banks are generally in the single

ments. The Central Bank of Finlandʼs report

digits, with Mitsubishi UFJ at 7.8%, Sumitomosees digitalisation symmetrically with the

Mitsui at 6.39% and Mizuho at 5.59%.

multi-store, multi-employee business as the

A possible reason for the low ROE is exces-

business of private banks. This is because

sive equity capital. However, looking at thebank digitisation increases bank profitability

capital adequacy ratio（Tier 1 divided by as-

in the long term, and reduces costs. This issets）, Japanese banks are generally in the 4%

because digitalisation leads to a reduction in

range, which is seen as low compared to Nor-branches and overheadcost, but automatesdic banks. Therefore, it is not that European

much of the work. In this case, new technolo-banks are undercapitalised and have higher

gies such as AI（artificial intelligence）andROEs.

block chain are particularly important for

It is likely that it is the profit to sales（rev-banks. 15）enue）ratio that defines the difference in ROE.

However, the digitalisation of the banking

Looking at expense ratios（2018）, Nordic andsector brings new competitors. These are

Dutch banks are in the 40-50% range, while

multinational digital banks and fintech start-

Japanese banks have higher expense ratios in

ups. It also allows giant IT firms, IT compa-

14 The Banker, July 201915 Bank of Finland（2019）46

証券経済研究
GRAPH 5
Belgium

第121号（2023.3）

NUMBER OF ATMS PER MILLION INHABITANTS
Germany

IrelandFranceNetherland

EU average

Japan

1800

1600

1400

1200

1000

800

600

400

200

0

2017

2018

2019

2020

2021

（source） ECB（2022e）（footnote） Japan includes convenience store ATM, which is calculated by author.

nies such as Apple, PayPal and Google, toin 2021, while Latvia also saw a sharp decline

supply financial services. Competition from gi-

from 452 to 63 branches. The low number ofant IT companies is likely to reduce the pric-branches can be seen in the Nordic countries

es of financial services provided by banks.

and the Netherlands, where fintech is more

Look at the number of branches per million

advanced. After all, fintech and other forms of

population for payment institutions. Payment

financial digitisation are likely to move in theinstitutions are not only banks in the narrow

direction of fewer branches and fewer staff.

sense, but also financial institutions in theGraph 5 then shows the number of ATMs

broader sense where payments can be made.

per million inhabitants. The lowest number ofAccording to this, the Netherlands had theATMs is still in the Netherlands, with a sharp

lowest number of payment institutions

decline from 373 in 2017 to 48 in 2021, a drop

branches in 2017 with 123, followed by Swe-of around one-seventh. The decline is particu-

den with 164, Denmark with 206 and Finland

larly significant from 2019 onwards. In Bel-with 221. 2021 saw a significant decrease ingium, the number of ATMs has also halved,

the number of payment institutions branchesfrom 911 to 489, and in Ireland, the numberin the Netherlands with 78, Sweden with 123,

has also almost halved. In Germany, on the

Denmark with 168 and Finland with 157. The

other hand, the pace of reduction has been

number of branches has all decreased signifi-

slower, falling only from 1,030 to 974 ATMs.

cantly. In addition to this, Estonia had 420

The number of ATMs（including convenience

branches in 2017, which fell significantly to 95

stores）in Japan stands out, with only a de-47

Developments in cashless payments in the EU and the introduction of a digital euro

crease from 1553 to 1462.

SEB and Danske at around 50% and Nordea

The question is why has fintech advanced

at around 55%. On the other hand, Deutschein the Nordic countries, such as Finland andBank, Commerzbank and UBS have high cost

the Baltic countries? It is thought that in theratios, at around 90%, 85% and over 80% re-

Nordic countries and elsewhere, the internet

spectively. The Nordic banks are consideredand smartphones are well established in soci-to be more efficient in their management andety as a whole, and that this digitalisation has

have lower cost-to-income ratios because of

been reflected in the financial domain. It is

the IT-related investments they have made.

probably not unconnected with the fact that

However, low profitability and NPL problems

Nokia, the worldʼs leading smartphone manu-

do not allow them to invest more in IT andfacturer, was a Finnish company. Within Eu-

digital investments. This will further reducerope, there is considerable variation in thethe banksʼ profitability in the long term, as IT

number of smartphones owned per populationand digital investments will be a cost factor（as of 2018）. The highest number is in Fin-for the banks in the short term, but in theland, with around 150 phones per 100 people.

long term they will lead to increased manage-

This is followed by Denmark and Sweden

ment efficiency and profitability, according towith around 120 phones per 100 people. On

a report by the Central Bank of Finland.

the other hand, Hungary has around 40 vehi-

As already noted, Latvia ranks first in thecles per 100 people and Portugal around 50.

euro area as a country with the lowest num-

There is a fourfold difference between Fin-ber of bank branches per population, and theland, which has the largest number of smart-

Baltic countries are also among the countries

phones, and Hungary, which has the small-where fintech and banking digitalisation is

16）In Finland, tax returns and other tax

progressing. Already in Graph 1, Estonia was

payments are not filed on paper, but electranked second as a low country in terms ofelectronically. As part of this digitalisation of

the proportion of cash transactions. In terms

society as a whole, the financial sector is alsoof the number of ATMs per million inhabit-

being digitised. The digitisation of banks leads

ants, Latvia has 252.6（in 2021）, the lowest

to a reduction in the number of bank branch-number in the euro area.

es.

Baltic states（Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania）

est.

The cost-to-income ratios of the major Eu-

Thus, the three

are also cashless countries.

ropean banks show that Nordic banks such as

A number of fintech start-ups have

Finland are generally low: Swedbank at

emerged in the Baltic States. Estoniaʼs Trans-

around 40%, Handelsbanken at around 45%,

ferWise was founded in 2011, and in its seven16 Bank of Finland（2018）.

48

証券経済研究第121号（2023.3）

years of existence, has created a revolution-less and fintech technology and the number

ary way to send money abroad. It is one ofof banks, branches and ATMs. And, as seen

the fastest growing companies in Europe andin Table 3, Nordic and Dutch banks have

has successfully raised EUR 1.4 billion（No-higher ROE and higher profitability.

vember 2017.

17）Crassula, based in the Latvi-

an capital, Riga, provides an API platform forbanks and financial institutions; it was found-3

Cashless payments and digitalcurrency

ed in 2015 by e-commerce and payments,
banks, software engineers and others. 18）Latvian IT company easyBI is one of the 50 fastest growing companies in Central Europe,

3.1．Card payments and interchange fee
rates

with a 442% increase in revenue over the past

The basis of cashless payments and fintech

four years. easyBI provides a web-based service

is card（credit and debit card）payments. As

that extracts the necessary data from publica fintech, payments are often debited from a19data and generates reports and charts. ）The

deposit account via a card, even if the pay-

Baltic countries, including Estonia and Latvia,

ment is made via a smartphone.

have generally developed IT, not only in the

I indicates the number of card payments

financial domain, and as a result, fintech in fi-

per capita. In Denmark, the number increased

nance is considered to have advanced.

from 355 in 2017 to 392.6 in 2021. In Sweden,

As already seen in Graph 1, the proportion

the number was 348.7 in 2017, increasing toof cash payments in the Netherlands, Estonia

339.6 in 2021. In Finland, the number also in-

and Finland is low and cashless payments arecreased from 298.3 to 341.6 cases. On the oth-progressing. Contactless card payments are

er hand, in the case of Malta（see Graph 1）,

also advanced in the Netherlands and Finland,

where the proportion of cash payments is

as seen in Graph 3. On the other hand, as

high, the number of card payments increased

seen in Table 2, the number of banks in Fin-from 63.1 to 116.9. There is a nearly fourfold

land has decreased by 140, from 338 to 198,

difference between the cases of Malta and theand in the Netherlands by 206, from 290 to 84.

Nordic countries. Card payments are also well

The number of branches per million people isestablished in the Nordic countries.

also low, at 78 in the Netherlands and 63 in

European retail payments were originally

Latvia. Thus, an inverse relationship can bedisparate in different countries. The 28 coun-observed between the development of cash-

tries, now integrated in the EU, used to oper-

17 The Baltic Times, February 26, 2019-March 26, 201918 The Baltic Times, January 29, 2019-February 26, 201919 The Baltic Times, 29 January 2019-February 26, 201949

Developments in cashless payments in the EU and the introduction of a digital euro

ate under different legal and technical sys-

card company（bank）B.（iv）The shop re-tems. However, with EU integration, bankceives the product P- fee from the transaction

transfers and direct debit cards were largelybank B.

harmonised across countries. For card pay-

With regard to this process, European

ments, on the other hand, differences still re-shops（EuroCommerce members）have com-mained in 2010. 20）

plained about bank fees（including inter-

One of the remaining variances related tochange fees）for card payments. Shops haveinterchange fees for card payments. For card

criticised banks for using fees to take rents

transactions, interchange fees are paid by thefrom shops. National authorities and the EU

shopʼs credit card company to the consumerʼsCommission have investigated this in relationcredit card company. Differences in inter-to antitrust law. In a number of cases, theychange fees affect the transaction fees paid byconcluded that interchange fee violate anti-

the shop and the consumer. Consequently, it

trust law.

is related to the payment habits of the con-After several years of litigation and re-sumer and the card authorisation of the shop.

search, a regulation on interchange fees for

European Commission identified differences incard payments was published by the EU ininterchange fees for card payments as an im-

2015. The aim was to lower the costs associat-

portant factor explaining national differences

ed with card payments（for both shops andin transaction fees and card payments.

consumers）and remove barriers to card pay-

The card payment process and the fees in-ments. It also sought to lower costs for shops

curred are: for a debit card,（i）the consumerby harmonising interchange fees across EUpurchases the goods from the shop at a pricecountries. Regulators outside the EU haveP.（ii）The consumer agrees to pay, and thealso moved on this issue. The US FRB intro-

card payment company（bank in Europe）Aduced a cap on interchange fees for debit andchecks the consumerʼs bank account balance

credit card payments in 2011.

and pays the product P plus a interchange fee

Table 4 shows the average interchange fee

F. However, banks rarely impose a clear

rates for debit and credit cards in EU coun-amount for this transaction fee F. Neverthe-tries（as of 2010）. Poland, Cyprus, Portugal

less, banks regularly charge consumers aand Romania were the countries in Table 4

package of payment fees（including online

with the highest card interchange fee rates,banking, ATM fees, etc.）.（iii）Card company

while Lithuania, Finland, Latvia and the UK

A on the consumer side transfers the producthad the lowest. In Finland, the fee rates are

P-（minus）fee（interchange fee）to the shopʼs

relatively low, ranging from 0.31～1.15% for20 Jakub Gorka（2016）,p149

50

証券経済研究
Table 4

Overview of Interchange Fee Arrangements for Debit and Credit Card Payments in Europe
Payment card scheme

ScopeType of transaction

Interchange fee
Debit

Poland

第121号（2023.3）

CreditMasterInternational

General trade

Visa

International

General trade

1.45％＋€0.05

1.50％

MasterInternational

General trade

1.75％

1.75％

Visa

International

General trade

1.50％

1.50％

Portugal

Multibanco

Domestic

General trade

0.8％（€0.05～1）

Romania

Visa, Master, Amex

International

General trade1（online）～1.5（paper） na

Lithuania

Visa

International

General trade0.15～0.19％＋€0.015

0.5～0.75％

MasterInternational

General trade0.1～0.13％＋€0.05

0.14～0.18％＋€0.05

Finland

International card

International

General trade0.31～1.15％

0.9～1.125％

LatviaMaster, Visa

Domestic

General trade0.5～0.6％

0.85～ 1％UK

Master, Visa

Domestic

General trade

Cyprus

1.60％€ 0.107

1.45％

na

0.90％

（source） ECB（2011）

debit cards and 0.9～1.125% for credit cards.

digital euro programme would be studied

In Lithuania, it was also considerably lower

over a period of two years, that a report on afor MasterCard, ranging from 0.1～0.13%＋

digital euro had already been published, that

€0.05 for debit cards and 0.14～0.18%＋ €0.05

a digital euro would complement and not re-for credit cards. It is still lower in the Nordic

place cash, and that privacy would be guaran-

and Baltic countries, which are more fintech

teed. It was further clarified that experimen-

and cashless. Basically, card interchange fee

tal work had been carried out in the past nine

rates are lower in countries where the num-months and that this experimentation con-ber of card payments per capita is high andcerned areas such as the digital euro ledger,

card payments are well established. As ofprivacy and anti-money laundering measures,

2022, credit card interchange fee rates arelimiting the volume of digital euros in circula-regulated at no more than 0.3% and debit

tion and end-user access. The results of thiscard payment fees at no more than 0.2% inwork indicated that there were no significant

the EU.

technical obstacles.
Both choices, such as the small payment

3.2．Introduction of a digital eurosystem by TARGET and the block chain, canOn 14 July 2021, the ECB issued a state21

process 40,000 transactions per second. Ex-）Theperiments have allowed for designs that com-main points of the statement were that thebine centralised and decentralised elements.

ment on its digital euro programme.

21 ECB（2021）

51

Developments in cashless payments in the EU and the introduction of a digital euro
Table 5

Task schedule of digital euro

Q 4 2021

Jul-21・Governing Council
decision to launch
investigation phase
・Project team
on-boarding
Governance set-up

Q 1 2022

Q 1 2023
・Use case prioritisation

・Compensation model

Report on focus groups

Access to ecosystemwith citizens and merchant

Value added services
Advanced functionalities

Q 2 2022

Prototyping results
・On line/off line availability
Data privacy levelQ 2 2023

Transfer mechanism

・User requirements

Q 3 2022

Preparation for possible project・Design options to moderaterealisation phase decision making

take-up・Distribution modelQ 3 2023

Q 4 2022

Sep-23Governing Council

Settlement model

decision to possibly launch

Amount in circulation

realisation phase

Role of intermediaries
Integration and form factor
Prototype development（source） ECB（2022c）

Digital euro was also environmentally sound,

2022, the settlement model, the balances inwith 10,000 transactions per second consum-

circulation, the role of financial intermediaries

ing only a fraction of the power of crypto as-

and the prototype of the digital euro are to besets such as bitcoin.

considered. A decision to enter the realisation

Table 5 shows the timetable for the introduction of a digital euro, published in Octoberphase is then expected by the third quarterof 2023. 22）

2022, with a start date of July 2021 and the

The first major issue in the design of CB-

above-mentioned statement: by the end ofDCs, not just digital euros, is whether they22 ECB（2022c）.

52

証券経済研究should be direct-issue（one-tier）or indirect-is-

第121号（2023.3）

tral bank to view transaction information.

sue（two-tier）. In the case of direct issuance,

In relation to the basic design described

the central bank issues directly. Traditionally,

above, the impact of the introduction of CBDC

central bank notes are issued by the central

has been discussed in various countries. First,

bank but drawn via private banks, which rep-

there is a view that this may affect the con-resents a significant change. In the case of in-ventional financial system and monetary poli-direct issuance, it would be via private banks,

cy. Related to the first point of the basic de-but there are concerns about possible compe-

sign, indirectly issued CBDCs compete withtition with traditional private bank deposits.

private bank deposits and the shift from de-

The second point is the question of whether

posits to CBDC will shrink the balance sheets

the token type or the account type should beof private banks. Second, to prevent the firstused. The token type has monetary value inpoint, capping CBDC holdings and transac-

the data itself. This is made possible by apply-

tions would be under consideration. In Baha-ing block chain technology（distributed ledger

ma, there is a holding limit, Bahamian dollar

technology）and jointly managing the books

500 for small amounts and Bahamian dollarof accounts. In the account type, the balance

5000 for medium amounts to individuals.

held by each person is managed in an ac-

Third, CBDCs can theoretically be attached tocount, similar to a deposit account in a privateinterest and can be either a sharp shift frombank. As it is centrally managed by a central

the cash. On the other hand, there is also thebank or similar, it is not anonymous and can-view that it can be used as monetary policy.

not be completed through face-to-face payments.

CBDCs previously experimented with invarious countries all share the commonality

The third point is the question of whether

that they are indirect-issue and have no at-or not to provide an offline payment facility.

tached interest. However, they are divided as

In the event of a disaster, it is important to be

to whether they are account or token-basedable to pay offline. Also of relevance, theand whether they have an offline function. Pi-

question of whether to introduce card-based

lot tests of CBDCs have been conducted indevices other than smartphones is also an is-

China since 2020 and are characterised by（i）

sue. Measures for elderly people and othersa retail payment instrument, where the bal-

who are unable to use their smartphones areance is managed through a smartphone wal-in mind.

let. Basically, it is account-based.（ii）It is an

The fourth point, already mentioned, is ano-indirect issuance type, issued by the Peopleʼs

nymity, or in other words, the issue of person-

Bank of China and supplied through designat-

al data and privacy protection. As discussed

ed banks, etc.（iii）Offline payment function.

below, Chinaʼs digital renminbi allows the cen-

Using short-range wireless communication

53

Developments in cashless payments in the EU and the introduction of a digital eurotechnology, direct payment can be made evenAs an argument relating to the third point,

between smartphones.（iv）It is centrally

it is noteworthy that the possibility and risks

managed and uses a block chain.（v）There isof using distributed ledger technology in se-

no interest attached, and it is a substitute forcurities settlement have already been exam-

cash. Experiments have already been con-ined by Deutsche Bundesbank for five years. 25）

ducted in Shenzhen and other major cities（asCurrently, T+2 is the dominant method of se-of 21 April 2022）, including Shanghai, and US

curities settlement worldwide, with settle-

companies such as Starbucks and McDonaldʼsment on the third day after the transaction.

are also participating.

However, with the use of CBDC, securities

A report published by the ECB in Octobersettlement could become instantaneous, and2020, prior to its July 2021 statement, states

CBDC is attracting attention from this per-that if the use of cash is decisively reduced,

spective: with the rise of HFT（high speed

foreign digital money could replace current

trading）, securities trading involves a billion

means of payment , in the case that othertrades per second, and there is a need toelectronic means of payment become unavail-shorten settlement periods.

able due to sudden incidents.

23）This can beread as being wary of Chinaʼs digital renmin-

4

Conclusion

bi. It also mentions the possibility of both online and offline payments at this point. At the

As seen above, cashless payments have in-same time, there is mention of privacy protec-

creased in EU countries in recent years. Con-

tion, money laundering and the financing oftactless payments are also on the rise, andterrorism. It further states that private finan-

non-cash payments are on the rise; card pay-cial institutions will play an important role inments are at the heart of cashless paymentsa digital euro.

in the EU, influenced by the regulation of fee

In October 2022, a presentation by the ECB

caps on card payments since 2015. As an ex-

identified three factors that led many central

tension of cashless payments, the introduction

banks to focus on CBDC. First, the emergenceof a digital euro is being considered. The ba-of crypto-assets and Covid-19. Second, con-sic design of digital euros is currently as-

cerns about the stability of the financial sys-

sumed to be a two-tier system, issued via pri-tem. Third, the constrained time and lengthvate banks, token-based for privacy protection,of the transaction chain of the current pay-with offline functionality.

24

ment system. ）23 ECB（2020b）
24 ECB（2022c）.
25 Deutsche Bundesbank（2017）,（2018）,（2019a）

54

証券経済研究

Reference.
Jakub Gorka（2016）, Transforming Payment Systems in Europe, palgrave
ECB（2011）,Interchange fees in card payment
ECB（2017）, The use of cash by households in theeuro area
ECB（2018）,Payment statistics
ECB（2020a）, Study on the payment attitudes ofconsumers in the euro area（SPACE）.
ECB（2020b）,Report on a digital euro
ECB（2021）,Eurosystem launches digital euro project
ECB（2022a）, Consumer payment preferences inthe euro area
ECB（2022b）, Costs of retail payments - an overview of recent national studies in Europe.
ECB（2022c）,Digital euro- our future money
ECB（2022d）, The Eurosystemʼs technical onboarding package for digital euro prototyping
ECB（2022e）,Payment statistics

第121号（2023.3）

technologies in payments and securities settlement :potential and risks, Monthly Report
Deutsche Bundesbank（2018）, Current regulatory
developments in the field of payments and in
the settlement of securities and derivatives,
Monthly Report
Deutsche Bundesbank（2019a）, Crypto tokens inpayments and securities settlement, Monthly
ReportDeutsche Bundesbank（2019b）, Payment services
in transition: instant payments, PSD 2 and newcompetitors, Monthly Report
Bank of Finland（2018a）,Payment statistics
Bank of Finland（2018b）, Nordic banks go digital,
Bank of Finland Bulletin.
Bank of Finland（2019）, The impact of digitalisation
on bank profitability, Bank of Finland Bulletin,
Bank of Finland（2022）,Payment statistics
The Banker, July 2019
The Banker, July 2022.

（駒澤大学経済学部教授・当研究所客員研究員）

Deutsche Bundesbank（2017）, Distributed ledger

55