In 2021, around 6 billion payments were made in Sweden.^[3] See the Riksbank's payment statistics for 2021. Transactions between financial companies are not included in the statistics. These payments have no inherent value in themselves; instead, their value lies in the economic transactions they enable. This applies above all to the exchange of goods and services in the economy and transfers to and from the public sector and between private individuals. Payments are therefore a necessary cost for society to function.^[4] In addition to costs, there are also benefits to certain payment methods. One example is credit cards, which give the cardholder access to credit and can provide bonus points, insurance, discounts, etc. However, making the payment market more efficient can reduce this cost.

The Riksbank's Cost Study published at the same time as this Commentary estimates that payments in Sweden in 2021 entailed a total social cost of 0.93 per cent of GDP. This corresponds to SEK 51 billion or almost SEK 5,000 per inhabitant in Sweden.

The cost study estimates that businesses, including the public sector, bear more than half – 55 per cent – of the social costs of payments. This includes the time spent by employees on payments and the cost of physical equipment and IT-systems needed to make and receive payments. Households bear 20 per cent of the total costs, which consist almost exclusively of the time spent by households on making payments. According to the Cost Study's estimates, this is about seven hours per Swedish inhabitant and year. Finally, payment service providers, mainly banks, bear the remaining 24 per cent of the costs. As with businesses and the public sector, these include time costs and other costs such as physical equipment and IT-systems.

This Commentary is structured so that in the next section we describe differences in the social unit costs of different digital payment instruments. We then illustrate the possibility of reducing the social costs of payments by making greater use of digital payments with the lowest social unit costs. Finally, we emphasise the importance of considering socio-economic benefits and not just costs when comparing different types of payments. This may include, for example, inclusion, sustainability and resilience in the payment market.