Determinants in adopting cashless payments in Europe: a multilevel analysis

Open Access © The Author(s) 2025. Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the mate‑ rial. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http:// creat iveco mmons. org/ licen ses/ by/4. 0/. RESEARCH García‑Merinoetal. Financial Innovation (2025) 11:76 https://doi.org/10.1186/s40854‑024‑00750‑z Financial Innovation Determinants inadopting cashless payments inEurope: amultilevel analysis Jose Domingo García‑Merino1 , Leire San‑Jose1 and Nerea San‑Martin1* Abstract The use of electronic currency for transactions, denoting a cashless paradigm, has become increasingly common. However, this financial innovation is not preva‑ lent in all countries. This study aims to explain the discrepancies across countries, including individual and country factors. It may be superficially posited that this lag in development stems from individual or microlevel usage challenges. However, the application of the Technology Acceptance Model highlights the presence of over‑ arching characteristics conducive to extensive adoption. Thus, an additional stratum, the multilevel perspective, needs to be examined. This analytical framework incorpo‑ rates not only individual attributes but also the sociotechnical framework or meso‑ level factors in which they operate. A multilevel econometric model is used. The results of these analyses show that the impact on the adoption of cashless payments extends beyond individual factors (attitude to technology use, perceived usefulness, and perceived ease of use). Our primary contribution, conceptually and empiri‑ cally, is to broaden the analysis vision. A comprehensive multilevel analysis revealed that broader contextual elements, such as infrastructure and national skills, exert a sig‑ nificant influence on the adoption of cashless transactions. Consequently, the wide‑ spread acceptance of cashless payment methods is not only contingent on individual choices but is also a collective phenomenon in which the surrounding environment plays a crucial role as a catalyst for the end users in the cashless economy. Keywords: Cashless payment, Multilevel perspective, Technology acceptance model, Microlevel, Mesolevel Introduction Monetary transactions are the backbone of economic structures. Khiaonarong and Humphrey (2022) documented a noticeable decline in the use of physical money. Moreover, the diminishing reliance on cash payments has prompted an increase in alternative payment methods. The trend in the dissemination of cashless transactions varies by country. Europe is an example of the lack of uniformity that characterizes the spread of cashless payment practices. The actual adoption of electronic payment transactions has evident disparities. Some countries have routinely employed these methods, whereas others have not attained widespread acceptance (Fig.1). The use of electronic means of payment constitutes an innovation with financial and technological components. The differences in the development of the banking system do *Correspondence: [email protected] 1 University of the Basque Country (UPV/EHU), Lehendakari Agirre, 83, 48015 Bilbao, Spain Page 2 of 20 García‑Merinoetal. Financial Innovation (2025) 11:76 not explain these discrepancies in the use of cashless payment, as shown in Fig.1. The differences are not only due to financial reasons. For example, Slovakia, which has a low level of mobile banking penetration and the lowest banking account rate, nevertheless has a higher level of cashless payment usage than Italy, with greater values for mobile banking and banking account rates. They may be technological. Appendix1: Table4 presents descriptive statistics reflecting the current state of these countries in terms of technological infrastructure. Figure2 illustrates a strong correlation between a country’s technological level and the extent of its cashless payment adoption. For instance, Finland and Estonia, where cashless payment is most prevalent, exhibit the highest levels of technological literacy among their citizens. This case is evidenced by their leading rates of mobile-broadband subscriptions per 100 persons. This study aims to identify the factors that determine actual cashless payment usage at the individual (micro) and technological-contextual (meso) levels. Consequently, the research and the hypotheses are intended to address the following questions: How do microand meso-levels affect the use of cashless payments in European countries? What country-level (meso-level) characteristics affect the use of cashless payment? We establish the microand meso-level factors as hypotheses to be tested to answer these research questions. The microlevel factors were extracted from the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM), whereas the meso-level ones were related to the technological infrastructure of the countries. For this purpose, we set the multilevel perspective (MLP) as conceptualized by Geels (2002). This study brings us closer to reality regarding the application of financial innovations through the case of electronic payments in Europe. 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 0.00% 5.00% 10.00% 15.00% 20.00% 25.00% 30.00% 35.00% 40.00% 45.00% % Bank Account PenetraonShare of Mobile Banking Fig. 1 Use of cashless payments in European countries and percentage of bank account penetration. Source own work based on the European Central Bank (2020) and Statista Market Insights (2022) Page 3 of 20 García‑Merinoetal. Financial Innovation (2025) 11:76 The study contributes to theoretical and practical literature in three relevant areas. First, we combine two distinct conceptual frameworks: TAM and MLP. This approach broadens our methodology to encompass individual and collective variables, providing a comprehensive framework for analysis. The TAM model posits that three main factors motivate users, namely, perceived ease of use, perceived usefulness, and attitude toward use (Davis, 1986). Nordhoff etal. (2019) reported that studies on the adoption of a new technology provide partial views. Particularly in the case of cashless payments, previous studies have used only individual-level data to explain their development (Ozturk 2016; Widyanto etal. 2022; Chen etal. 2023; Raj etal. 2023). The MLP provides a comprehensive theoretical framework for analyzing social change processes. This model encompasses a “global model” that outlines the broad trajectory of sociotechnical transitions and a “local model” that examines the behaviors of specific individuals (Geels 2019). Although some studies used aggregate data at the country level, they aim to explain the effects of the use of cashless payments on the economy (Tee and Ong 2016; Wong etal. 2020; Noman etal. 2023). The integration of the two levels of analysis has not been addressed. This perspective is innovative in the field of finance. Second, this study empirically addresses the MLP. We use an extension of the classic linear regression model by adopting a stepwise process. Empirical contributions that combine several levels of analysis are exceedingly scarce, particularly in studies of technology transitions in the financial sector. Finally, we introduce actual use variables instead of intention variables. We source these data from the European Central Bank, which conducts a questionnaire on the use of payment methods (i.e., cash and cashless). This approach provides greater consistency and reliability to the results. 0.00% 20.00% 40.00% 60.00% 80.00% 100.00% 120.00% 140.00% 160.00% 0.00% 5.00% 10.00% 15.00% 20.00% 25.00% 30.00% 35.00% 40.00% 45.00% Individualswith at leastbasic levelofdigital in informa on domain Mobile-broadband subscrip onsper 100 pop. Fig. 2 Use of cashless payments in European countries and technological infrastructures. Source own work based on the European Central Bank (2020), Eurostat (2021) and the International Telecommunication Union (2023) Page 4 of 20 García‑Merinoetal. Financial Innovation (2025) 11:76 The results demonstrate that individual attributes related to the use of technologies (TAM variables) are necessary but not sufficient to achieve widespread use of a technology. This analysis confirms the need to incorporate meso (contextual) variables in addition to micro (individual) variables to explain the integration of technological innovation. At the microlevel, the findings indicate that the three individual variables analyzed significantly influence the use of cashless payment. Specifically, attitudes toward cashless payments, the use of other banking products and services, and easy access to electronic payment methods are explanatory factors for an individual’s degree of preference for noncash transactions. At the meso-level, physical and skill-based infrastructures are noteworthy drivers for the adoption and implementation of digital payment methods. Therefore, the results obtained are also relevant in practice because they provide policymakers with valuable information for developing the infrastructure needed to achieve widespread use of cashless payments. This finding not only contributes to the attainment of several desirable economic and financial outcomes but also helps mitigate the potential negative effects that may arise if cash were to disappear. This paper is organized as follows. First, we address the theoretical framework by reviewing the concept of a cashless economy and its implications. This study provides a literature review on the process of achieving such an economy, with special emphasis on the underlying theoretical frameworks. Based on these insights, we propose a research model and develop hypotheses on the use of cashless payments in Europe. Then, we discuss the results and deduce theoretical and practical implications, along with avenues for future research. Finally, we present our conclusions. Literature review Cashless economy: anew reality Payments are a strategic issue for a country, but they are also part of everyday life (Kalia etal. 2017). The instruments used by citizens in their financial transactions play a pivotal role. The global transition toward a cashless economy is a noteworthy trend in this direction. A cashless economy is characterized by the exclusive use of digital payment mechanisms in transactions related to the exchange of goods and services (Singhraul and Garwal 2018). However, this event is not merely a financial transformation. An economy based on electronic payments has several implications for national economies. Although most of these implications are positive, several drawbacks and risks must be considered to ensure that the transformation is beneficial. Most experts found that the expansion of cashless instruments stimulates economic growth (Zhang etal. 2019; Wong etal. 2020). They further found that the level of consumption and electronic payments are highly correlated. In addition, low cost and ease of transactions through electronic payments will increase personal consumption (Li etal. 2023). According to Moody’s analytics, an increase of 1% in the volume of card transactions would increase the consumption of goods and services by approximately $67 billion annually and GDP by 0.01% (Zandi and Singh 2021). However, other studies warn that cashless payments are associated with a great propensity for indebtedness, Page 5 of 20 García‑Merinoetal. Financial Innovation (2025) 11:76 compulsive buying, and hasty financial decision-making (Cwynar etal. 2022), which may lead to a deterioration in well-being (Hunter and Heath 2017). Another benefit of cashless payments is a reduction in the shadow economy (Reimers etal. 2020). At least in Europe, the development of cashless payment and the size of the shadow economy are strongly and negatively correlated (Kearney and Schneider 2013). Hawash etal. (2020) noted that secure electronic currency systems can protect legitimate users’ privacy while tracing unlawfully issued or laundered monies. In the event of any criminal activity, the bank can revoke the anonymity of digital payments, which in turn increases tax revenues (Fabris 2019). To a certain extent, this advantage could also pose a drawback because many individuals, for entirely legitimate reasons, may not wish to disclose information about their transactions or payments with merchants, financial companies, or the government, which could potentially compromise their privacy (Horne and Collins 2023). In addition to these direct effects, the use of cashless payments has an indirect effect of reducing fraud in trading. This case also helps reduce criminal activities and cash thefts (Rogoff 2015), thereby decreasing material losses and physical assaults (Fabris 2019). In the United States, burglary and assault rates have decreased by approximately 10% since the government-shifted social welfare payments to electronic transfers (Ishak 2020). Therefore, a cashless payment economy has a positive impact on a country’s sense of security and economic progress. Another advantage of cashless payments is the introduction of greater efficiency into the payment system. Cash payments have several costs that lead to inefficiencies, such as the need to go to an ATM to withdraw cash, the deterioration or loss of cash (for users), and the need for cash to be coined, safely transported, and stored for future use (for issuers). Cashless payment enables the development of a decentralized architecture, faster transactions, and lower transaction costs. Although expenses per payment continue to increase, once the infrastructure is established, electronic system costs remain fixed (Ali etal. 2019). In addition, electronic payment methods promote the use of a banking system because they require maintaining balances in a bank or a payment service provider. ALGhamdi et al. (2022) found a relationship between increased turnover and increased demand for deposits. This phenomenon allows banks to make additional cash and low-cost funds available for lending for investments, which is a key driver of economic growth. Nevertheless, some studies noted that in a cashless economy, the central bank could lose control over monetary policy. Tee and Ong (2016) elucidated that the loss of central bank autonomy in regulating money demand could result in a significant increase in prices owing to the accelerated circulation of money, thereby triggering inflation. On theroad toacashless economy: fromindividual process tosocial transformation In light of the aforementioned positive implications, policymakers would seem to be interested in achieving a cashless economy. However, this goal is not an easy task. The completion of this changeover calls for comprehensive changes at individual and collective levels. As shown above, the level of development in different countries is uneven. Technological innovation per se is no longer novel, and its transfer across countries, at least within Page 6 of 20 García‑Merinoetal. Financial Innovation (2025) 11:76 the same area, such as Europe, does not appear to be a hindrance. Hence, additional reasons must exist. In this study, we aim to identify these reasons and determine how they influence the actual use of digital payment methods in different European countries. To this end, we combine the TAM with the MLP. This process allows us to expand our approach and incorporate individual and collective variables. Adoption ofcashless payment asanindividual process The factors that influence the acceptance and use of a technology from an individual’s perspective have been extensively addressed through the TAM model. This model was adapted from Ajzen and Fishbein’s Theory of Reasoned Action (1980) and introduced by Fred Davis (1985, 1989). The TAM posits that users’ motivation can be explained by three main factors: perceived ease of use, perceived usefulness, and attitude toward use (Davis 1989). The main assumption of this model is that the acceptance or rejection of a technology is primarily determined by the user’s attitude toward the use of that technology. Attitude is influenced by two other factors related to user perception, that is, perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use, which also have a direct impact on the former. In general, the TAM model allows us to analyze the specific factors that make a technology or system acceptable or unacceptable. In the twentieth century, this model was applied in several industries, including finance. In particular, TAM was applied to Internet banking (Afshan etal. 2018), mobile banking (Chawla and Joshi 2018), and cashless payment (Tan etal. 2014; Lai 2017; Sumerta and Wardana 2018; Natarajan etal. 2018; Sumerta etal. 2019; Balakrishnan and Shuib 2021). However, its limitations should not be ignored. Much of the criticism of the TAM model is related to its current use and how it is measured (Walldén etal. 2016). This model is usually validated using a level of intention to use rather than actual use (Mathieson 1991; Chao 2019). We take the TAM model as a starting point and adjust it by introducing variables that measure actual usage rather than intention to overcome these constraints. This crucial turning point allows us to evaluate the actual use of technologies and to identify the individual factors that influence their use. This analysis of cashless payment usage is incomplete because the external variables capable of influencing individual behavior were ignored (Malhotra and Galletta 1999). Notably, individuals’ actions in this context can only be realized when the requisite infrastructure systems (encompassing electronic machines, the Internet, and technological skills) are functioning optimally. Consequently, an individual’s choice to embrace cashless transactions is contingent upon the contextual conditions prevailing in the relevant country. In this case, the socioeconomic environment is just as significant, if not more, in determining its fruition. Social transformation towardacashless economy The cashless economy is much more than individuals’ decisions to use a new technology. A multilevel approach should be adopted to understand the technological transition process (Geels 2002). Specifically, Geels (2002) posited three levels (Fig.3). Page 7 of 20 García‑Merinoetal. Financial Innovation (2025) 11:76 The MLP is a framework for conceptualizing transition processes resulting from the interaction of three analytical levels (Kühl 2023). The macro-level of the landscape captures the slow-changing external social factors that determine major social trends. By contrast, the microlevel accounts for the individual factors that drive the generation and development of innovations (in our proposal, the user’s attitude and their perceptions about the use of cashless payments). Between these two levels, the meso-level reflects the extent of technological development that enables the emergence of new trends. Physical and skill infrastructures support these trends. This framework, which combines several levels of aggregation, allows the higher-level (country) and individual factors to influence the adoption of a new technology to be captured in a nested way. The transition pathway from one level to another occurs through dynamic interaction with the other two levels. Innovation emerging from the individual level can only augment the prevailing sociotechnical regime if the broad landscape is favorable and supportive of such transformative changes (Geels 2005). The meso-level combines individual and group actions, resulting in interdependencies and the establishment of a technical regime (Nelson and Winter 1977). The meso-level analysis makes research highly consistent and coherent by bridging the gap between the microand macro-levels (Schenk etal. 2007). Geels (2010) acknowledged that sociotechnical transitions are multidimensional phenomena, making them susceptible to examination from various perspectives across disciplines. This case inevitably results in certain aspects being highlighted, whereas others are left in the background. Each framework is rooted in an ontology, with each ontology assuming a primary causal mechanism. Our approach is economic. Accordingly, we focus on the necessary resources (infrastructures). A secure and reliable network plays a major role in expanding cashless payment services. This network includes Internet connectivity, power supply, cloud computing, blockchain, and cybersecurity. (Khando etal., 2020). Liao etal. (2022) noted that the existing inequalities in the use of digital technology should be understood as a multidimensional phenomenon that encompasses the accessibility of information and communication technologies (ICTs) and the capabilities needed to use them. Therefore, we consider that infrastructure must be understood in a broad sense. Physical infrastructures are not useful without their ability to be used. Therefore, the concept of infrastructure includes the tangible aspects and the knowledge needed to use it. Micro-level (Individuals characteriscs) Macro-level (landscape developments) Meso-level (context variables) Fig. 3 Multiple levels as a nested hierarchy. SourceGeels (2002: p. 1261) Page 8 of 20 García‑Merinoetal. Financial Innovation (2025) 11:76 Development ofhypotheses In this paper, we conceptualize all model components from a multilevel perspective. Specifically, at the individual or microlevel, we include the three main variables of the TAM model, which we adapt to measure the actual use of payment methods. Regarding the sociotechnical framework or meso-level, considering what was mentioned in the previous section, two context variables are contrasted: country-related infrastructure and country-related technology skills. Attitude towardcashless payments One of the factors that may influence individuals’ use of technologies is their attitude toward new technologies, that is, the degree to which an individual values using a technology positively or negatively (Davis 1989). Most studies agreed on the direction of this relationship but not on how to measure the attitude variable. This case is a complex construct. As Whitley (1997) predicted, this case could produce bias and inconsistency in the results. Hence, we opted for a more direct variable, that is, the importance given to establishments offering cash payment systems to avoid biases. This variable eliminates the problems derived from motivations that influence attitudes (cognitive and affective attitudes), such as beliefs and self-efficacy. If negative reasons or beliefs concerning cashless payments are considered, then people may be concerned about the payment option that they are allowed to use. Cash payments are less of a concern if cashless payments are to be used. The European Central Bank (ECB, 2020) examined this issue. They showed a barrier in people’s attitude toward payment methods, where the level of importance attributed to having the option of paying in cash reflects a barrier to using cashless payments. H1: The importance of having the option to use cash negatively affects the use of cashless payments. Perceived usefulness Perceived usefulness can be defined as people’s judgment on whether their decision to use a technology is advantageous to them (Stocchi etal. 2019). Shifting from traditional methods to cashless payment could be difficult because of switching costs (Loh etal. 2021). Costs may include cognitive and emotional effort, which can keep users attached to outdated technologies (Yen 2010). These unit costs decrease as the number of transactions increases, whereas the unit benefits remain constant. We consider the degree of use of banking services and products to objectify this benefit or advantage. Aurazo and Vega (2021) distinguished between “banked people” and “unbanked people.” They found that banked people do not use cash or make only marginal use of it, whereas unbanked people need cash for everything. Other studies have shown that cashless payments will become highly widespread as financial inclusion increases (Kumar etal., 2020). Frączek and Urbanek (2021) supported this idea as they show the importance of financial inclusion in online shopping and payments in passenger transport. Page 9 of 20 García‑Merinoetal. Financial Innovation (2025) 11:76 H2: The use of banking services and products positively affects the use of cashless payments. Perceived ease ofuse Perceived ease of use is a construct related to individuals’ assessment of the effort involved in using the system (Venkatesh 2000). Effort expectancy is the ease of use related to the technical features of a system (Phan etal. 2020). Technology should not only be accessible to users. In this case, two users exist: buyers and merchants. However, many researchers have only examined the adoption of a cashless payment system from a consumer’s perspective. Insight into the behavior of merchants is lacking (Guo and Bouwman 2016). Ng (2018) found that shopping centers and hotels around shopping areas have good credit card coverage. However, small merchants where transactions are typically less than $100 are limited. One reason for this is the cost of acceptance in the form of the merchant discount rate. Merchants do not want to lose customers; thus, as more users use electronic payments, additional merchants join the cashless payment system (Au and Kauffman 2008). We selected the number of cashless means of payments that can be accessed to objectify this variable. H3: The number of accessible cashless means of payment positively affects the use of cashless payments. Country‑related (physical andskill) infrastructure In addition to the above-mentioned factors, Davis (1993) acknowledged the existence of several conditions that affect the adoption of a new technology. Venkatesh etal. (2003) referred to these as “facilitating conditions.” The empirical literature has considered individual external variables. However, broader variables that refer to not only individuals but also sociotechnical frameworks should be used. In this case, the unit of analysis considered for such variables is the country, as in Liébana-Cabanillas etal. (2014). The context can facilitate or hinder the use of a technology. A favorable context implies adequate technological infrastructure and education in the country. In this way, we agree with other authors such as Batrancea etal. (2023), that the concept of infrastructure is more than just physical elements. Regarding country-related technology infrastructures, Krüger and Seitz (2014, p.45) concluded that “in order to process payments an appropriate infrastructure is required.” Specifically, they noted that in Germany, the limited use of credit/debit cards is at least partly attributable to the underdeveloped acceptance infrastructure. However, this notion has not been empirically verified. Infrastructure plays an important role in mobile commerce (m-commerce) as it is a core component of m-commerce technology (Staton 2001). Shaqrah (2017) empirically validated infrastructure as a determinant of the use of new technology, in this case, referring to technologies in the field of education. In addition, infrastructure is the primary driver of e-payment adoption. The development of reliable and efficient infrastructures is essential to enable innovative digital payment mechanisms that are user-friendly, secure, and cost-effective (Khiaonarong etal. 2021). Page 16 of 20 García‑Merinoetal. Financial Innovation (2025) 11:76 Methodologically, we pioneered the use of multilevel regression to analyze TAM, thus bridging the gap between theoretical intentions and practical application. Our findings emphasize that transitioning to a cashless payment economy requires systemic support and policies. Successful implementation depends on an integrative strategy that encompasses individual readiness and robust national infrastructure, ensuring that the cashless paradigm advances across diverse European contexts. A disparity across countries exists, even within the European context, and an individual-focused analysis is insufficient to address the inclusion of this financial innovation. Broadening the analysis focus to include meso-level variables is imperative. However, we employ data on actual cashless use, not on the intent to use, as this may introduce bias. This approach allows us to obtain a highly accurate view of the degree of generalization of this means of payment. Limitations andfuture research Our study is not without limitations, which will undoubtedly require further research. The first limitation relates to the sample used. We used data from 1year (2019, the latest available). A longitudinal analysis will be necessary to complete the diagnostic analysis and determine the trend in the use of cashless payments in Europe. Moreover, these data refer to the period before the COVID-19 pandemic. Hence, the effects of the associated crisis are not reflected. Given the magnitude of the crisis and the health and social implications of the use of cash, we are convinced that these effects have been significant. Technological advancement has facilitated the development of an increasingly digitized social life. Hence, examining whether this digitization encourages the adoption of cashless payments is crucial. In line with this, a new research line could focus on determining whether the development of gadgets (smartphones) drives the cashless economy. Moreover, future research should explore strategies to ensure financial inclusion for cash-dependent segments, such as the elderly and those with limited technological literacy or Internet access. Examples include examining policies and interventions that can bridge the digital divide and ensure that vulnerable populations are not excluded from the benefits of cashless payments. Addressing these gaps is essential for a truly inclusive financial system that can accommodate the needs of all societal groups. The data are limited to the European context, constraining the empirical results to specific countries within the EU. Nevertheless, we recognize that the methodology employed, with the selected microand meso-determinants, can be readily applied elsewhere, particularly in developed countries that share similar socioeconomic characteristics within a defined range, specifically lower levels of financial inclusion. This study is undoubtedly a promising short-term research area and may yield interesting results. Appendix1 See Table4 here Page 17 of 20 García‑Merinoetal. Financial Innovation (2025) 11:76 Abbreviations ATM Automated teller machine ECB European central bank e‑payment Electronic payment GDP Gross domestic product ICC Intra‑class correlation coefficient ICT Information and communication technology ITU International telecommunication union MDR Merchant discount rate (MLP) Multi‑level perspective RQ Research question TAM Technology acceptance model Acknowledgements We would like to thank editors, guest editors and anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments. Author contributions JDGM, LSJ & NSM designed the study. JDGM performed the measurements, LSJ & NSM were involved in planning and supervised the work, JDGM & NSM processed the statistical data and LSJ review the last statistical results. Each author write one of the hypothesis with the supervision of others. JDGM, LSJ & NSM drafted the manuscript after the interpreta‑ tion of the results, also they designed the figures. All authors discussed the results, and read and approved the final manuscript. Funding Euskal Herriko Unibertsitatea (UPV/EHU) ECRI Ethics in Finance & Social Value GIU22/003 Fundación Emilio Soldevilla para la Investigación y el Desarrollo en Economía de la Empresa (FESIDE) BOPV2020. Availability of data and materials The datasets analysed during the current study are available in: ECB (European Central Bank) (2020): Study on the pay‑ ment attitudes of consumers in the euro area (SPACE). Available at: https:// www. ecb. europa. eu/ pub/ pdf/ other/ ecb. space repor t2020 12~bb203 8bbb6. en. pdf Eurostat. Individuals’ level of digital skills (until 2019). Available at: https:// ec. europa. eu/ euros tat/ web/ produ cts‑ datas ets/‑/ isoc_ sk_ dskl_i International Telecommunication Union (ITU). Available at: https:// www. itu. int/ en/ ITU‑D/ Stati stics/ Docum ents/ facts/ Facts Figur es2019_ r1. pdf. Declarations Competing interests The authors declare that they have no competing interests. Table 4 Technological Infrastructure by Country Mobile-cellular telephone subscriptions per 100 pop Mobile-broadband subscriptions per 100 pop Fixed-broadband Internet subscriptions per 100 pop Individuals with at least basic level of digital in information domain Austria 123,5 88 28,4 82,1712 Bélgica 103,4 75,7 39,2 84,5167 Chipre 84,1 80,8 26,4 80,6966 Estonia 145,4 146,7 33,3 86,2685 España 115,9 98,5 32 83,0436 Finlandia 132,2 156,4 31,5 93,1198 Francia 108,4 91,6 44,8 81,4588 Grecia 115,7 82 37,7 72,1968 Irlanda 103,2 103,8 29,7 84,6001 Italia 137,5 94,5 28 60,8606 Lituania 164,3 100,6 28,2 78,4893 Letonia 107,3 130,2 27,3 78,6787 Luxemburgo 132,2 94 37,1 86,7217 Malta 140,2 110,5 43,7 79,3953 Portugal 115,6 73,8 36,9 69,2345 Eslovenia 118,7 77,7 29,5 78,6738 Eslovaquia 132,8 86 27,7 79,5473 Page 18 of 20 García‑Merinoetal. Financial Innovation (2025) 11:76 Received: 5 December 2024 Accepted: 29 December 2024 References Afshan S, Sharif A, Waseem N, Frooghi R (2018) Internet banking in Pakistan: an extended technology acceptance per‑ spective. Int J Bus Inf Syst 27(3):383–410. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1504/ IJBIS. 2018. 089860 Ajzen I, Fishbein M (1980) Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Prentice‑Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ Alalwan AA, Dwivedi YK, Rana NP (2017) Factors influencing adoption of mobile banking by Jordanian bank customers: extending UTAUT2 with trust. Int J Inf Manage 37(3):99–110. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. ijinf omgt. 2017. 01. 002 ALGhamdi, S.A., Daim, T. & Meissner, D. (2022) Electronic payment technology: Developing a taxonomy of factors to evaluate a fraud detection and prevention system for the airlines industry. In: Daim T, Dabić M, Yu‑Shan Su (eds) The Routledge Companion to Technology Management. Routledge, New York, pp 450–511 Ali MA, Hussin N, Abed IA (2019) Electronic payment systems: architecture, elements, challenges and security concepts: an overview. J Comput Theor Nanosci 16(11):4826–4838. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1166/ jctn. 2019. 8395 Au YA, Kauffman RJ (2008) The economics of mobile payments: understanding stakeholder issues for an emerging finan‑ cial technology application. Electron Commer Res Appl 7(2):141–164. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. elerap. 2006. 12. 004 Aurazo J, Vega M (2021) Why people use digital payments: evidence from micro data in Peru. Latin Am J Central Bank 2(4):100044. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. latcb. 2021. 100044 Balakrishnan V, Shuib NLM (2021) Drivers and inhibitors for digital payment adoption using the cashless society readiness‑adoption model in Malaysia. Technol Soc 65:101554. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. techs oc. 2021. 101554 Batrancea LM (2023) The hard worker, the hard earner, the young and the educated: empirical study on economic growth across 11 CEE countries. Sustainability 18(4):e0283277. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3390/ su152 215996 Chao CM (2019) Factors determining the behavioral intention to use mobile learning: an application and extension of the UTAUT model. Front Psychol 10:1652. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3389/ fpsyg. 2019. 01652 Chawla D, Joshi H (2018) The moderating effect of demographic variables on mobile banking adoption: an empirical investigation. Global Bus Rev 19(3_suppl):S90–S113. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 09721 50918 757883 Chen F, Jiang G, Xiao JJ (2023) Mobile payment use and payment satisfaction: mediation and moderation analyses. Int J Bank Market 41(4):727–748. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 23311 975. 2023. 22295 44 Cwynar A, Świecka B, Filipek K, Porzak R (2022) Consumers’ knowledge of cashless payments: development, validation, and usability of a measurement scale. J Consum Aff 56(2):640–665. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ joca. 12424 Davis FD (1989) Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Q 13(3):319–340. https:// doi. org/ 10. 2307/ 249008 Davis FD (1993) User acceptance of information technology: system characteristics, user perceptions and behavioral impacts. Int J Man Mach Stud 38(3):475–487. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1006/ imms. 1993. 1022 Davis, F. D. (1985). A technology acceptance model for empirically testing new end-user information systems: Theory and results. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. ECB (European Central Bank) (2020): Study on the payment attitudes of consumers in the euro area (SPACE). Available at: https:// www. ecb. europa. eu/ pub/ pdf/ other/ ecb. space repor t2020 12~bb203 8bbb6. en. pdf Eurostat (2021). Individuals’ level of digital skills. Available at: https:// ec. europa. eu/ euros tat/ datab rowser/ view/ isoc_ sk_ dskl_ i21__ custom_ 98828 30/ bookm ark/ table? lang= en& bookm arkId= ca727 989‑ dcca‑ 4872‑ 9a11‑ 051d8 950f0 1e Fabris N (2019) Cashless society–the future of money or a Utopia? J Central Bank Theory Prac 8(1):53–66. https:// doi. org/ 10. 2478/ jcbtp‑ 2019‑ 0003 Finch WH, French BF (2011) Estimation of MIMIC model parameters with multilevel data. Struct Equ Model 18(2):229–252. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 10705 511. 2011. 557338 Frączek B, Urbanek A (2021) Financial inclusion as an important factor influencing digital payments in passenger trans‑ port: a case study of EU countries. Res Transp Bus Manag 41:100691. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. rtbm. 2021. 100691 Geels FW (2002) Technological transitions as evolutionary reconfiguration processes: a multi‑level perspective and a case‑study. Res Policy 31(8–9):1257–1274. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/ S0048‑ 7333(02) 00062‑8 Geels FW (2004) From sectoral systems of innovation to socio‑technical systems: insights about dynamics and change from sociology and institutional theory. Res Policy 33(6–7):897–920. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. respol. 2004. 01. 015 Geels FW (2010) Ontologies, socio‑technical transitions (to sustainability), and the multi‑level perspective. Res Policy 39(4):495–510. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. respol. 2010. 01. 022 Geels FW (2019) Socio‑technical transitions to sustainability: a review of criticisms and elaborations of the multi‑level perspective. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 39:187–201. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. cosust. 2019. 06. 009 Geels FW, Schot J (2007) Typology of sociotechnical transition pathways. Res Policy 36(3):399–417. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. respol. 2007. 01. 003 Geels, F. W. (2005). Technological transitions and system innovations: a co-evolutionary and socio-technical analysis. Edward Elgar Publishing. Gefen D (2003) TAM or just plain habit: a look at experienced online shoppers. J Organiz End User Comput 15(3):1–13. https:// doi. org/ 10. 4018/ joeuc. 20030 70101 Guo J, Bouwman H (2016) An analytical framework for an m‑payment ecosystem: a merchants׳ perspective. Telecom‑ mun Policy 40(2–3):147–167. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. telpol. 2015. 09. 008 Hawash B, Abuzawayda Y, Mokhtar UA, Yusof ZM, Mukred M (2020) Digital transformation in the oil and gas sector during COVID‑19 pandemic. Int J Manag. https:// doi. org/ 10. 34218/ IJM. 11. 12. 2020. 067 Horne D, Collins MC (2023) No card, no service: challenges faced by vulnerable populations of a cashless society. Bus Soc Rev 128(3):532–548. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ basr. 12324 Page 19 of 20 García‑Merinoetal. Financial Innovation (2025) 11:76 Hunter JL, Heath CJ (2017) The relationship between credit card use behavior and household well‑being during the great recession: implications for the ethics of credit use. J Financ Couns Plan 28(2):213–224. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1891/ 1052‑ 3073. 28.2. 213 International Telecommunication Union (2023). Measuring digital development: Facts and Figures 2023. Available at: https:// www. itu. int/ itu‑d/ repor ts/ stati stics/ facts‑ figur es‑ 2023/ Ishak N (2020) Overview of cashless payment in Malaysia. Int J Acc Financ Bus 5(27):11–18 Kalia P, Arora R, Law P (2017) Information technology act in India: e‑commerce value chain analysis. NTUT J Intellect Prop Law Manag 5(2):55–978 Kearney AT, Schneider F (2013) The shadow economy in Europe, 2013. Visa. Available at: https:// www. atkea rney. com/ docum ents/ 10192/ 17438 16/ The+ Shadow+ Econo my+ in+ Europe+ 2013. pdf Khando K, Islam MS, Gao S (2022) Factors shaping the cashless payment ecosystem: understanding the role of participat‑ ing actors. In: Andreja Pucihar; Mirjana Kljajić Borštnar; Roger Bons; Anand Sheombar; Guido Ongena; Doroteja Vidmar(eds.) 35th Bled eConference – Digital Restructuring and Human (Re)action. June 26 – 29, Maribor, Slovenia: University of Maribor University Press, 161–186. https:// doi. org/ 10. 18690/ um. fov.4. 2022 Khiaonarong T, Humphrey D (2022) Falling use of cash and demand for retail central bank digital currency. IMF Work Papers 2022(027):1. https:// doi. org/ 10. 5089/ 97984 00200 861. 001 Khiaonarong T, Leinonen H, Rizaldy R (2021) Operational resilience in digital payments: experiences and issues. IMF Work Papers 2021(288):1. https:// doi. org/ 10. 5089/ 97816 16355 913. 001 Klein KJ, Kozlowski SWJ (2000) A multilevel approach to theory and research in organizations: Contextual, temporal, and emergent processes. In K. J. Klein & S. W. J. Kozlowski (eds.): Multilevel theory, research and methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions, and new directions (pp. 3–90). San Francisco, CA: Jossey‑Bass. Krüger M, Seitz F (2014) Costs and benefits of cash and cashless payment instruments: overview and initial estimates. Study commissioned by the Deutsche Bundesbank. Frankfurt. Kühl C, Skipworth HD, Bourlakis M, Aktas E (2023) The circularity of product‑service systems: the role of macro‑, meso‑and micro‑level contextual factors. Int J Oper Prod Manag 43(4):619–650. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1108/ IJOPM‑ 01‑ 2022‑ 0055 Kumar Vaid Y, Singh V, Sethi M (2020) Determinants of successful financial inclusion in low‑income rural population. Indian Econ J 68(1):82–100. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 00194 66220 9620 Lai PC (2017) The literature review of technology adoption models and theories for the novelty technology. JISTEM—J Inf Syst Technol Manag 14(1):21–38 Lepoutre J, Oguntoye A (2018) The (non‑) emergence of mobile money systems in Sub‑Saharan Africa: a comparative multilevel perspective of Kenya and Nigeria. Technol Forecast Soc Chang 131:262–275. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. techf ore. 2017. 11. 010 Li J, Luo S, Zhou G (2023) Electronic payment, natural environment and household consumption: evidence from China household finance survey. Int Rev Financ Anal 85:102472 Liao SC, Chou TC, Huang CH (2022) Revisiting the development trajectory of the digital divide: a main path analysis approach. Technol Forecast Soc Chang 179:121607. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. techf ore. 2022. 121607 Liébana‑Cabanillas F, Sánchez‑Fernández J, Muñoz‑Leiva F (2014) Antecedents of the adoption of the new mobile pay‑ ment systems: the moderating effect of age. Comput Hum Behav 35:464–478. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. chb. 2014. 03. 022 Liébana‑Cabanillas F, Molinillo S, Japutra A (2021) Exploring the determinants of intention to use P2P mobile payment in Spain. Inf Syst Manag 38(2):165–180. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 10580 530. 2020. 18188 97 Liu SH (2012) A multivariate model of factors influencing technology use by preservice teachers during practice teach‑ ing. J Educ Technol Soc 15(4):137–149 Loh XM, Lee VH, Tan GWH, Ooi KB, Dwivedi YK (2021) Switching from cash to mobile payment: what’s the hold‑up? Inter‑ net Res 31(1):376–399. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1108/ INTR‑ 04‑ 2020‑ 0175 Malhotra Y, Galletta DF (1999) Extending the technology acceptance model to account for social influence: Theoretical bases and empirical validation. In Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Hawaii International Conference on Systems Sciences. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos, CA: 1–14. Mathieson K (1991) Predicting user intentions: comparing the technology acceptance model with the theory of planned behavior. Inf Syst Res 2(3):173–191. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1287/ isre.2. 3. 173 Natarajan T, Balasubramanian SA, Kasilingam DL (2018) The moderating role of device type and age of users on the inten‑ tion to use mobile shopping applications. Technol Soc 53:79–90. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. techs oc. 2018. 01. 003 Nelson RR, Winter SG (1977) In search of useful theory of innovation. Res Policy 6(1):36–76. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/ 0048‑ 7333(77) 90029‑4 Ng D (2018) Evolution of digital payments: Early learnings from Singapore’s cashless payment drive. J Paym Strat Syst 11(4):306–312 Ng D, Kauffman RJ, Griffin P, Hedman J (2021) Can we classify cashless payment solution implementations at the country level? Electron Commer Res Appl 46:101018. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. elerap. 2020. 101018 Noman M, Maydybura A, Channa KA, Wong WK, Chang BH (2023) Impact of cashless bank payments on economic growth: evidence from G7 countries. Adv Decis Sci 27(1):1–20 Nordhoff S, Kyriakidis M, Van Arem B, Happee R (2019) A multi‑level model on automated vehicle acceptance (MAVA): a review‑based study. Theor Issues Ergon Sci 20(6):682–710. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 14639 22X. 2019. 16214 06 Ntim KK, Fombad M (2021) A model for open access institutional repositories usage for university libraries in Ghana. Inf Dev 37(4):579–596. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 02666 66920 937343 Ozturk AB (2016) Customer acceptance of cashless payment systems in the hospitality industry. Int J Contemp Hosp Manag 28(4):801–817. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1108/ IJCHM‑ 02‑ 2015‑ 0073 Paccagnella O (2006) Centering or not centering in multilevel models? the role of the group mean and the assessment of group effects. Eval Rev 30(1):66–85. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 01938 41X05 275649 Phan H, Tran M, Hoang V, Dang T (2020) Determinants influencing customers’ decision to use mobile payment services: the case of Vietnam. Manag Sci Lett 10(11):2635–2646. https:// doi. org/ 10. 5267/j. msl. 2020.3. 029 Page 20 of 20 García‑Merinoetal. Financial Innovation (2025) 11:76 Rahadi R, Nainggolan Y, Afgani K, Yusliza M, Faezah J, Ramayah T, Saputra J, Muhammad Z, Farooq K, Angelina C (2022) Towards a cashless society: use of electronic payment devices among generation Z. Int J Data Netw Sci 6(1):137– 146. https:// doi. org/ 10. 5267/j. ijdns. 2021.9. 014 Rahman M, Ismail I, Bahri S (2020) Analysing consumer adoption of cashless payment in Malaysia. Digit Bus 1(1):100004. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. digbus. 2021. 100004 Raj LV, Amilan S, Aparna K, Swaminathan K (2023) Factors influencing the adoption of cashless transactions during COVID‑19: an extension of enhanced UTAUT with pandemic precautionary measures. J Financ Serv Mark. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1057/ s41264‑ 023‑ 00218‑8 Reimers HE, Schneider F, Seitz F (2020) Payment innovations, the shadow economy and cash demand of households in euro area countries. CESifo Working Paper No. 8574. Available at SSRN: https:// ssrn. com/ abstr act= 37021 26 or https:// doi. org/ 10. 2139/ ssrn. 37021 26 Rogoff K (2015) Costs and benefits to phasing out paper currency. NBER Macroecon Annu 29(1):445–456. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1086/ 680657 Rysman M, Schuh S (2017) New innovations in payments. Innov Policy Econ 17(1):27–48. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1086/ 688843 Schenk NJ, Moll HC, Uiterkamp AJS (2007) Meso‑level analysis, the missing link in energy strategies. Energy Policy 35(3):1505–1516. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. enpol. 2006. 04. 013 Shaqrah A (2017) Impacts of TAM‑based external factors on blackboard system continuance usage. J Educ Prac 8(19):34 Shwedeh F (2024) Harnessing digital issue in adopting metaverse technology in higher education institutions: evidence from the United Arab Emirates. Int J Data Netw Sci 8(1):489–504. https:// doi. org/ 10. 5267/j. ijdns. 2023.9. 007 Singhraul BP, Garwal YS (2018) Cashless economy–challenges and opportunities in India. Pacific Bus Rev Int 10(9):54–63 Siyam N (2019) Factors impacting special education teachers’ acceptance and actual use of technology. Educ Inf Technol 24:2035–2057. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s10639‑ 018‑ 09859‑y Statista Market Insights (2022). Digital Banks. Available at: https:// www. stati sta. com/ outlo ok/ fmo/ banki ng/ digit al‑ banks Staton R (2001) The mobile internet: what is it? how will it be built? and what services will it deliver? Int Rev Law Comput Technol 15(1):59–71. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 13600 86012 00364 73 Stocchi L, Michaelidou N, Micevski M (2019) Drivers and outcomes of branded mobile app usage intention. J Product Brand Manag 28(1):28–49. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1108/ JPBM‑ 02‑ 2017‑ 1436 Sumerta IK, Wardana IM (2018) Analysis of intention to use electronic money in Denpasar City: tam approach. Arch Bus Res. https:// doi. org/ 10. 14738/ abr. 610. 5356 Sumerta IK, Widyagoca IGPA, Adiandari AM, Herlambang PGD (2019) Analysis of technology acceptance model (TAM) to use E‑money in Bali Province. Int J Adv Trend Comput Sci Eng 8(1.5):206–211 Świecka B (2018) Financial literacy as a factor of cashless payments development. results of survey. Eur J Serv Manag 27(3/2):467–473 Tan GWH, Ooi KB, Chong SC, Hew TS (2014) NFC mobile credit card: the next frontier of mobile payment? Telemat Inform 31(2):292–307. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. tele. 2013. 06. 002 Tee HH, Ong HB (2016) Cashless payment and economic growth. Financ Innov. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1186/ s40854‑ 016‑ 0023‑z Van der Cruijsen C, Van der Horst F (2019) Cash or card? unravelling the role of socio‑psychological factors. De Economist 167:145–175. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s10645‑ 019‑ 09340‑2 Venkatesh V (2000) Determinants of perceived ease of use: integrating control, intrinsic motivation, and emotion into the technology acceptance model. Inf Syst Res 11(4):342–365. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1287/ isre. 11.4. 342. 11872 Venkatesh V, Morris MG, Davis GB, Davis FD (2003) User acceptance of information technology: toward a unified view. MIS Quart. https:// doi. org/ 10. 2307/ 30036 540 Verbeke G, Lesaffre E (1997) The effect of misspecifying the random‑effects distribution in linear mixed models for longi‑ tudinal data. Comput Stat Data Anal 23(4):541–556. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/ S0167‑ 9473(96) 00047‑3 Walldén S, Mäkinen E, Raisamo R (2016) A review on objective measurement of usage in technology acceptance studies. Univ Access Inf Soc 15(4):713–726. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s10209‑ 015‑ 0443‑y Whitley BE Jr (1997) Gender differences in computer‑related attitudes and behavior: a meta‑analysis. Comput Hum Behav 13(1):1–22. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/ S0747‑ 5632(96) 00026‑X Widyanto HA, Kusumawardani KA, Yohanes H (2022) Safety first: extending UTAUT to better predict mobile payment adoption by incorporating perceived security, perceived risk and trust. J Sci Technol Policy Manag 13(4):952–973. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1108/ JSTPM‑ 03‑ 2020‑ 0058 Wong T‑L, Lau W‑Y, Yip T‑M (2020) Cashless payments and economic growth: evidence from selected OECD countries. J Central Bank Theory Practice 9(s1):189–213. https:// doi. org/ 10. 2478/ jcbtp‑ 2020‑ 0028 Yen Y (2010) Can perceived risks affect the relationship of switching costs and customer loyalty in e‑commerce? Internet Res 20(2):210–224. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1108/ 10662 24101 10322 54 Zandi M. & Singh V. (2021). The Impact of Payment Cards on Economic Growth. Moody’s Analytics Study: The Global Impact of Electronic Payments. Available at: https:// usa. visa. com/ conte nt/ dam/ VCOM/ regio nal/ na/ us/ visa‑ every where/ docum ents/ the‑ impact‑ of‑ payme nt‑ cards‑ on‑ econo mic‑ growth. pdf Zhang Y, Zhang G, De Liu L, Renzis T, Schmiedel H (2019) Retail payments and the real economy. J Financ Stab 44:100690. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. jfs. 2019. 100690 Zhang F, Jin C, Fan C (2024) Factors influencing students’ reading literacy in Morocco: a multilevel analysis. Human Soc Sci Commun 11(1):1–10. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1057/ s41599‑ 024‑ 03575‑4 Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.