Cost recovery and pricing of payment services
A modern payment system is essential for promoting domestic and international trade and exchange as well as developing financial markets. Payment users will be directed toward the most efficient payment methods when the costs of producing those services are reflected in the prices paid. Resources are being wasted in the United States because consumers see no important difference in transaction prices or bank costs between using a check or using electronic direct debit in paying a bill, even though the social costs of these two instruments are different. Electronic payments cost only a third to half as much as paper-based payments. An estimated $100 billion (or 1.5 percent of GDP) is being lost by the continued use of paper-based checks. When payment instruments are not appropriately priced, the costs must be covered elsewhere. One common solution is to let loan revenues cover part of payment expenses (keeping loan rates higher to compensate). When prices reflect the full cost of producing the service, users demand the services that use the fewest real resources. The authors give examples of payment prices and price schedules and show how underlying cost data are used to"build up"to a price. They outline how payment services may best be structured to: a) Appropriately reflect economies of scale or scope in the production of payment services; b) Adjust cost recovery percentages to accommodate how much demand conditions associated with start-up differ from those associated with mature operation. (During a new system's early years of operation, the transaction volume may be low and some form of underrecovery of costs may be required to encourage use of the system. But any such underrecovery must be built into future pricing arrangements oncethe systems are established and traffic volumes are at a level where full cost recovery is practical. To ensure fairness, the pricing structure must also guarantee that latecomers to the system not get more favorable treatment than the initial user group.); and c) Induce efficient use of scarce resources. They note the economic principles that recommend certain pricing methods over others and apply equally to payment services provided by the private sector or through a government agency. They show why costs should be recovered through user transaction fees.
|Date of creation:||01 Oct 1997|
|Date of revision:|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: 1818 H Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20433|
Phone: (202) 477-1234
Web page: http://www.worldbank.org/
More information through EDIRC
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Kirstin E. Wells, 1996. "Are checks overused?," Quarterly Review, Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, issue Fall, pages 2-12.
- David B. Humphrey & Lawrence B. Pulley & Jukka M. Vesala, 1996. "Cash, paper, and electronic payments: a cross-country analysis," Proceedings, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (U.S.), pages 914-941.
- Paul W. Bauer, 1993. "Efficiency and technical progress in check processing," Economic Review, Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland, issue Q III, pages 24-38.
- Humphrey, David B & Pulley, Lawrence B & Vesala, Jukka M, 1996. "Cash, Paper, and Electronic Payments: A Cross-Country Analysis," Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 28(4), pages 914-39, November.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wbk:wbrwps:1833. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Roula I. Yazigi)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.