Finally, we would like to emphasise that both the cost studies and the reasoning in this Economic Commentary only deal with costs and cost-efficiency. We therefore only look at the time and resources that different payments require in the analysis. However, there are also other social values that need to be taken into account when comparing different payment instrument and analysing the payment market as a whole, not least the resilience of society in crises and wars, where different ways of paying may have different advantages and disadvantages.

For example, card payments are made possible by large global card networks that have significant economies of scale, which is positive because it makes them cheaper. At the same time, the fact that the networks are global can be problematic from an emergency preparedness point of view, as the infrastructure that enables the payments is not controlled from Sweden. Decisions regarding the card networks are therefore made outside Sweden's borders. On the other hand, the fact that the infrastructure is located abroad can be positive if the national payment infrastructure is knocked out during crises and wars.

There may also be value in redundancy in the payment market to strengthen resilience. Access to several different ways of paying in each payment situation makes it possible to pay even if there are disruptions in one system. One example is whether it is possible to pay with cash, cards and Swish in a shop. The number of players on the payment market offering the same payment method also plays a role. A monopoly situation, for example if only one bank were to offer bill payments, could be vulnerable and thus a problem from an emergency preparedness perspective.

Furthermore, inclusion in the payment market is an important value. A digitalised payment market makes it difficult for people to make payments if they are digitally excluded, and for people who do not have a payment account or a BankID (the dominant electronic ID in Sweden issued by banks) and therefore are not admitted into the digital payment market. Non-digital payments and payments that do not require access to a bank account and BankID are therefore needed. However, our conclusion is that it is possible to both improve inclusion in the payment market and at the same time reduce society's costs for payments by investing in digital inclusion, which makes it possible for more people to pay digitally.