The successful operation of retail e-payment systems depend on several stakeholders, such as consumers, merchants and financial institutions. As consumers constitute an essential target group for retail e-payments, their profile information has come to be seen as important in the demand management of e-payments. As such, this study aims to examine the effects of socio-demographic factors on the intensity of using e-payments in Malaysia. Results from the censored Tobit model analysis based on a cross-sectional sample of 578 respondents indicate that younger consumers with higher levels of education and income utilise e-payments in a more intensive manner, ceteris paribus. Ethnic background, marital status and type of occupation are also important predictors in determining the intensity of using e-payments amongst consumers. A better understanding of how such socio-demographic factors may influence consumers’ e-payments usage intensity is essential for policy makers to efficiently design and implement effective policy measures.
AmirA.B. (2009). Payment systems in Malaysia: Recent development and issues, Working Paper 151, Asian Development Bank Institute, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo, Japan.
2.
Bank for International Settlements. (2004). Survey of developments in electronic money and internet and mobile payments, Committee on Payment and Settlement Systems Publication 62, Basel: Bank for International Settlements.
3.
Bank Negara Malaysia (2011). Financial stability and payment systems report 2010, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
4.
BorzekowskiR.KiserE.K. (2006). The choice at the checkout: Quantifying demand across payment instruments, Finance and Economics Discussion Series, Divisions of Research and Statistics and Monetary Affairs, Federal Reserve Board, Washington, D.C.
5.
BounieD.FrancoisA. (2006). Cash, check or bank card? The effect of transaction characteristics on the use of payment instruments, Working Paper in Economics and Social Sciences, ESS 06-05, Telecom Paris.
6.
CarowK.A.StatenM.E. (1999). Debit, credit, or cash: Survey evidence on gasoline purchases. Journal of Economics and Business, 51, 409–21.
7.
ChingA.T. (2010). Why are the elderly reluctant to adopt new payment technologies?Lydian Journal, 2, 25–31.
8.
DahlbergT.ÖörniA. (2006). Finnish consumers’ expectations on developments and changes in payment habits, Research Discussion Paper 32, Bank of Finland, Helsinki, Finland.
9.
Department of Statistics Malaysia. (2001). Population and housing census of Malaysia 2000. Putrajaya, Malaysia: Department of Statistics Malaysia.
10.
FujikiH.TanakaM. (2009). Demand for currency, new technology and the adoption of electronic money: Evidence using individual household data, IMES Discussion Paper 2009-E-27, Bank of Japan, Chuo-ku, Tokyo, Japan.
11.
GreeneW.H. (2008). Econometric analysis, 6th Edition, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
12.
HayashiF.KleeE. (2003). Technology adoption and consumer payments: Evidence from survey data. Review of Network Economics, 2, 175–90.
13.
HumphreyD.B. (2004). Replacements of cash by cards in U.S. payments. Journal of Economics and Business, 56, 211–255.
14.
HumphreyD.B.KaloudisA.OwreG. (2004). The future of cash: Falling legal use and the legal implications of government policy. Journal of International Financial Markets, Institutions and Money, 14, 221–33.
15.
HumphreyD.B.KimM.ValeB. (2001). Realizing the gains from electronic payments: Costs, pricing, and payment choice. Journal of Money, Credit, and Banking, 33, 216–34.
16.
JonkerN. (2007). Payment instruments as perceived by consumers—results from a household survey. De Economist, 155, 271–303.
17.
KalckreuthU.SchmidtT.StixH. (2009). Choosing and using payment instruments evidence from German microdata, Working Paper 1144, European Central Bank, Frankfurt, Germany.
18.
KennickellA.B.KwastM.L. (1997). Who uses electronic banking? Results from the 1995 survey of consumer finances, Proceedings from the 33rd Annual Conference on Bank Structure and Competition, Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, Chicago, IL.
19.
KleeE. (2006). Families’ use of payment instruments during a decade of change in the U.S. payments system, Finance and Economics Discussion Paper 2006–01, The Federal Reserve Board.
20.
LawsonR.ToddS. (2003). Consumer preferences and payment methods: A segmentation analysis. International Journal of Bank Marketing, 21, 72–79.
21.
MallatN. (2007). Exploring consumer adoption of mobile payments—A qualitative study. Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 16, 413–32.
22.
MannR.J. (2011). Adopting, using, and discarding paper and electronic payment instruments: variation by age and race, Public Policy Discussion Paper 11–2, Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, Boston MA.
23.
MantelBrian (2000). Why do consumers pay bills electronically? An empirical analysis, Economic Perspectives, Fourth Quarter, Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, Chicago, IL.
24.
McDonaldJ.F.MoffittR.A. (1980). The uses of Tobit analysis. Review of Economics and Statistics, 60, 318–21.
25.
MooslechnerP.StixH.WagnerK. (2006). How are payments made in Austria? Results of a survey on the structure of Austrian households’ use of payment means in the context of monetary policy analysis. Monetary Policy and the Economy, 2, 111–34.
26.
SnellmanJ.VesalaJ.HumphreyD.B. (2000). Substitution of noncash payment instruments for cash in Europe, Discussion Paper 1/2000, Bank of Finland, Helsinki, Finland.
27.
StavinsJ. (2001). Effect of consumer characteristics on the use of payment instruments. New England Economic Review, 3, 21–31.
28.
TaylorV. (2006). Trends in retail payments and insights from public survey results. Bank of Canada Review, Spring, 25–36.
29.
TobinJ. (1958). Estimation of relationships for limited dependent variables. Econometrica, 26, 24–36.
