DNB Occasional Studies
Vol.10/No.2 (2012)
Cash usage in
the Netherlands:
How much, where,
when, who and
whenever one wants?
DNB
Occasional Studies
Nicole Jonker, Anneke Kosse and Lola Hernández
DNB_OS_1002_Omsl_300821.indd 1
23-03-12 15:58
Central bank and prudential supervisor of financial institutions
©2012 De Nederlandsche Bank NV
Authors: Nicole Jonker, Anneke Kosse and Lola Hernández
Aim of the Occasional Studies is to disseminate thinking on policy and analytical issues in areas
relevant to the Bank.
Views expressed are those of the individual authors and do not necessarily reflect official positions of
De Nederlandsche Bank.
Editorial Committee
Jakob de Haan (chairman), Eelco van den Berg (secretary), Hans Brits, Pim Claassen, Maria Demertzis,
Peter van Els, Jan Willem van den End, Maarten Gelderman and Bram Scholten.
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or
transmitted in any form by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopy, recording or otherwise,
without the prior written permission of the Nederlandsche Bank.
Subscription orders for DNB Occasional Studies and requests for specimen copies should be sent to:
De Nederlandsche Bank NV
Communications
P.O. Box 98
1000 AB Amsterdam
The Netherlands
Internet: www.dnb.nl
DNB_OS_1002_Omsl_300821.indd 2
23-03-12 15:58
Occ asiona l St ud ies
Vol.10/No.2 (2012)
Nicole Jonker, Anneke Kosse and Lola Hernández
Cash usage in the Netherlands:
How much, where, when, who
and whenever one wants?1
1 Comments made by Hans Brits are gratefully acknowledged as well as comments made by an anonymous referee. Views expressed in this study do not necessarily coincide with those of de Nederlandsche
Bank. Contact details: Lola Hernández: [email protected], Nicole Jonker: [email protected] and
Anneke Kosse: [email protected].
Cash usage in the Netherlands
Table of contents
Abstract 7
1
Introduction 9
2
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
Research method and sample 11
Research scope and research population 11
Sample 11
Research method 12
Recruitment of respondents and data collection 13
Weighting and adjustment 13
3
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
Cash payments in the Netherlands in 2010 15
Total number and value of cash payments 15
The use of cash relative to the amount paid 16
The use of cash payments by market segment 19
The use of cash during the week 22
4
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
Who uses cash? 25
Number of cash payments per person per day 25
Share of cash payments in the total number of payments 28
Amount of cash in people’s pockets 28
How people acquire cash 28
5
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
Constraints 33
Perceived constraints for each payment instrument 33
Used instrument vs preferred instrument 35
Perceived constraints according to personal characteristics 36
Recorded and desired pos payment behaviour in 2010 37
6
6.1
6.2
International comparison 39
Pos payment behaviour 39
Research methods used 41
7.
Conclusions 43
References 45
Appendix I composition of sample 49
5
Cash usage in the Netherlands
Abstract
Having accurate information on cash usage is essential for monitoring the
substitution process of cash by cards and for assessing the cost efficiency of
the payment system. Moreover, estimates on cash usage reflect the transaction
demand for cash. This is useful for central banks which are responsible for
producing and issuing banknotes. The latest estimates of the number and value
of cash payments made in the Netherlands date from 2007. How has cash usage
developed since then? In what branches do consumers use cash and what type
of consumers still rely heavily on cash? These questions and others are analysed
using a one-day diary survey held in September 2010 in which 7,499 Dutch
consumers documented their daily transactions. We find that Dutch consumers
made about 5 billion cash payments in 2010. Although the majority of purchases
are paid in cash, its role has steadily decreased due to increasing debit card usage.
Cash is mainly used for low-value transactions, and especially the elderly and
lower educated people still rely heavily on cash. Overall, the Dutch are able to
pay the way they want. Only in 3% of transactions they had no choice but to use
another means of payment as the one preferred.
7
Cash usage in the Netherlands
1 Introduction
Both the Dutch central bank (DNB) and the relevant stakeholders on the Dutch
payments market have a need to keep abreast of the trends in the use of cash in the
Netherlands. Research has shown that the social costs of paying differ according to
payment instrument. In general, a cash transaction is found to be more expensive
for banks, retailers and the society as a whole than a debit card payment.2 This has
created a huge demand for up-to-date and reliable information on the number of
cash payments and the proportion of aggregate payments accounted for by cash,
since it allows for a better understanding of how total payment costs change over
the years. In addition, as DNB is responsible for the issue of new bank notes and
the circulation of notes and coin in the Netherlands, the bank needs to obtain a
clear picture of the use of cash in the Netherlands. This has become increasingly
difficult as, since the introduction of the euro, no statistics have been kept on the
number and value of bank notes and coins in circulation in the individual eurozone
countries.
The most recent estimate of the use of cash in the Netherlands dates from 2007,
when the Dutch made around 5.2 billion cash payments. To monitor the annual
trend in the number and value of cash transactions, DNB launched a series of
annual, comprehensive surveys in 2010. The first survey was conducted from
6 September to 5 October 2010, when 7,499 consumers kept a diary of all their
payments during the course of a single day. A questionnaire was then used in order
to collect and analyse the information on these transactions. This study reports on
the main findings and conclusions of this first survey. It gives a clear picture both
of how consumers in the Netherlands paid for their point-of-sale (POS) purchases
in 2010 and of the trend since 2007. The relevance of this study is to shed light on
the payment behaviour of Dutch consumers, and in particular on the diminishing
role of cash over time.
We show that the Dutch made some 5 billion cash payments in 2010. Of these,
4.4 billion were made in shops and at other points-of-sale (POS). These cash
transactions represented 65% of all POS payments, making cash the most frequently
used means of payment at the POS in terms of numbers of transactions. The use
2 See for example EIM (2011) and Bolt and Chakravorti (2010).
9
made of cash at the POS is, however, on the decline, mainly because debit card
payments are growing increasingly popular.3 Indeed, the number of cash payments
has fallen by 17% in three years’ time. At the same time, the number of debit card
payments rose by 38% from 1.6 billion to 2.2 billion between 2007 and 2010. The
value of debit card purchases outstripped that of cash already a long time ago. In
2010, total POS cash payments were worth EUR 53 billion, representing 38% of the
aggregate value of POS transactions in the Netherlands.
In addition to POS payments, consumers made 674 million cash transactions in
2010 as a means of giving money to relatives, friends or charity. The total value of
these person-to-person payments was EUR 8.6 billion.
Our results also show that in the vast majority of cases, Dutch consumers use the
instrument of their choice when making payments. They were forced to resort to
other instruments in less than 3% of transactions. Overall, there would have been
1.7% fewer cash payments and 2.4% more debit card payments in 2010 if consumers
had been able to pay with their instrument of choice. The fact that consumers do
not always pay as they would like is due mainly to retailers not always accepting
their instrument of choice, charging a small fee for using it, or because a POS
terminal is temporarily out of order. In addition to these constraints, consumers
sometimes fail to use their preferred means of payment because they forget to bring
it with them.
This study proceeds as follows: chapter 2 briefly discusses the research method and
sample used and chapter 3 describes the findings relating to the use of payment
instruments in the Netherlands. More specifically, it analyses the use of cash by
market segment, transaction value, and the day of the week. Chapter 4 then describes
the impact of personal characteristics on the use of cash, and also discusses the
amount of money the Dutch carry in their pockets and how they obtain their cash.
Chapter 5 highlights perceived constraints in payments, and chapter 6 compares
our study findings with those of other countries. Chapter 7 presents our main
conclusions.
3 According to EIM (2011), the decrease in cash payments in the Netherlands between 2006 and 2009 is
only partly due to the changeover from cash to debit card payments. Other explanations are the drop in
the overall volume of POS purchases and the rise in the average transaction amount, possible caused by
the growing importance of e-commerce and one-stop shopping.
10
Cash usage in the Netherlands
2.Research method and sample
2.1 Research scope and research population
The aim of this study is to analyse the number and value of cash payments made
in the Netherlands in 2010. In order to bring into focus the role played by cash,
we will also take into account all other POS payment instruments. Our study is
limited to payments made in the Netherlands by Dutch residents over 12 years of
age. As a result, the sample population consists of 13,860,200 people. Transactions
made by Dutch consumers abroad, children below the age of 12, tourists and other
non-residents have been disregarded. We have looked both at payments made at
the POS (including street vendors and vending machines) and at payments made
among individuals, such as relatives, colleagues, and friends, i.e. person-to-person
payments. Internet purchases and bank transfers have been disregarded.
2.2 Sample
The fieldwork was carried out by Heliview Research between Monday 6 September
and Tuesday 5 October 2010. In order to be able to draw reliable conclusions
on the use of cash by the entire Dutch population in 2010, Heliview Research
took a representative sample from their consumer panel based on the following
demographic aspects: gender, age, ethnicity and education. Other items factored
into the sample were region, country of origin and income bracket. All seven
research segments were based on the definitions produced by Statistics Netherlands,
the national statistics office.
As purchasing and payment behaviour differs from day to day, the assessments
were spread evenly over 31 days. For every day and every week, the number of
respondents was sufficiently large and representative in terms of gender, age,
ethnicity, education, region, country of origin and income bracket. A total of 7,499
respondents took part in the study. See Appendix I for the final composition and
size of the sample.
11
2.3 Research method
Respondents were asked to keep a diary of all their payments on one predetermined
day. Previous research had shown that keeping a diary in this way helps respondents
keep an accurate record of all their purchases, including small, everyday items. If
other methods are used, they tend to forget these kinds of payments, for instance if
they are called at the end of the day and asked about the purchases they made that
day, or if they are asked to record their purchases in a diary for a period of longer
than one day (Sudman and Bradburn, 1973; Gibson and Kim, 2007; Tincello et al.,
2007; Jonker and Kosse, 2009; Schmidt, 2011).
The respondents were asked to record the following transaction details:
• Date, day and time of day (i.e. morning, afternoon or evening);
• Place of purchase (choosing from 16 pre-defined market segments);
• Payment instrument used;
• Transaction value.
We made very clear to the respondents that, even if they had performed no
transactions at all on the respective day, this was still relevant information. So
respondents were asked to complete their diaries even if this was the case. They
were also asked to record the amount of money that they had on them at the start
of the day, how much money they had withdrawn, and/or received during the day,
and how much money they had left at the end of the day.
Respondents could use their completed transaction diaries to jog their memories
when filling in the questionnaire provided to them the next day. The questionnaire
asked them about all the payments they had made the day before. In order to
obtain a better picture of their motives in choosing a payment instrument on each
occasion, they could also indicate for each payment whether or not they would
have preferred to use another means of payment than the one actually used. If this
was indeed the case, they were then asked about their preferred payment instrument
and why they had used another means of payment than they had intended. The
questionnaire also included a number of social demographic questions.
2.4 Recruitment of respondents and data collection
We used a combination of web-based and telephone-based methods for recruiting
respondents and for collecting the answers to the questionnaire. Of the final net
sample of 7,499 people, 7,147 respondents completed an on-line questionnaire and
352 respondents responded by telephone. Of these, 199 ended up by filling in an
on-line questionnaire after all.
12
Cash usage in the Netherlands
The on-line process, from sending out the invitations to forwarding the reminders,
was performed in conjunction with PanelClix and took four days per respondent.
On day 1, the respondents received an email announcing the study. They were
asked to download the diary, fill it in the following day, and complete the on-line
questionnaire two days later. As the respondents were obliged to confirm their
participation in the study, and because there were two days between the confirmation
and the actual questionnaire, the final sample could, if necessary, be adjusted if
either the total response rate or the rate of response in specific sub-segments, was
relatively low. On day 2, the respondents received an email reminding them that
their diaries would have to be filled in that day. On day 3, the respondents received
a link to the on-line questionnaire, which they could fill in with the aid of their
completed diaries until midnight on the same day. On day 4, respondents who had
not yet filled in their questionnaires received a reminder. If they did not want to
fill in the questionnaire, they were asked to complete a brief non-response form.
A telephone survey was held at the same time as the on-line survey, to ensure that
people who make no or hardly any use of the internet were adequately represented
in the sample. The respondents were approached by telephone and asked if they
wanted to take part in the survey. Those agreeing to take part on-line were sent a
link to the diary and the on-line questionnaire, as described above. Those wishing
to take part by telephone were sent the diary by mail. They were called again the
day after they had filled the diary and were interviewed by telephone.
2.5 Weighting and adjustment
As the final composition of the sample was not completely consistent with the
composition of the research population (see also Appendix 1), the study findings
were reweighed to account for gender, age, education and ethnicity differences. The
results were also adjusted in accordance with the day of the week. As the responses
were not evenly distributed over the days of the week (e.g. payments made on
Mondays and Tuesdays were measured five times, whereas the other days were
only counted four times), an adjustment was made to make sure that every daily
average was equally represented in the aggregate average. This cancelled out the
oversampling on Mondays and Tuesdays.
In order to make a realistic estimate of the total number of cash payments in the
Netherlands in 2010, the total research population was adjusted to account for the
fact that not everyone was able to make payments. The latter category includes
inmates of penitentiary institutions, people with a severe physical or mental
disability, people in hospital, expatriates, business travellers and holiday-makers.
The size of these groups is estimated at 1,434,086, bringing the final research
population to 12,426,114.
13
Cash usage in the Netherlands
3 Cash payments in the Netherlands in 2010
3.1 Total number and value of cash payments
In 2010, consumers in the Netherlands made a total of 7.4 billion payments by
means of cash, debit cards, prepaid cards or credit cards (see table 1). The total value
of these payments was EUR 147 billion. The vast majority of these payments were
made in shops, bars, restaurants and petrol stations, as well as at vending machines
and market stalls and to service-providers. These are referred to collectively as
‘POS payments’. 9% of these payments were of the nature of payments among
individuals or donations to charity. Consumers mainly used cash for these kinds of
payments, as bank cards are generally not suited for this purpose. In addition to cash
payments, consumers also used bank transfers for payments to other individuals
and donations to charity. These have not been included in our study.
Table 1: Number and value of payments in the Netherlands in 2010 4
Number
Value
Average value
(in millions)
(in billions of euros)
(EUR )
Cash payments
5,045
61.9
12.26
- POS
4,371
53.3
12.19
- Person-to-Person
Debit cards
674
8.6
12.71
2,154
80.9
37.56
Prepaid cards
178
0.5
2.61
Credit cards
36
4.0
111.11
Total payments
7,413
147.3
19.87
- POS
6,739
138.7
20.58
4 Apart from cash, debit cards, prepaid cards and credit cards, respondents used other payment
instruments such as fuel cards, affinity cards and public transport prepaid cards. Due to their low
frequency of usage, these instruments have not been included in Table 1, Diagram 1 or Diagram 2.
15
Diagram 1: Number and value of POS payments in 2007 and 2010
In billions
5
100
5.2
4.4
4
3
1.6
2
2.2
0.2 0.2
1
0
Cash
Debit card
Prepaid card
2007
2010
0.03 0.04
Credit card
In billions of euros
6
69
80
60
81
50 53
40
20
0.5 0.5
0
Cash
Debit card
2007
Prepaid
card
4
4
Credit card
2010
To pay for their POS purchases, consumers made 4.4 billion cash payments and
2.2 billion debit card payments.5 Cash was used primarily for minor purchases,
bringing the total value of cash payments (EUR 62 billion) below that of all debit
card payments (EUR 81 billion). Prepaid cards and credit cards were used sparingly:
prepaid cards mostly for paying small amounts, while credit cards were used for
paying large amounts.
Between 2007 and 2010, the number of cash POS payments declined by 17% from
5.2 billion to 4.4 billion (see diagram 1). This is due mainly to the fact that the
Dutch are making more and more use of their debit cards, but probably also to the
fact that they are purchasing from a smaller number of shops. This is confirmed by
the increase in the value of the average cash payment, standing at just over EUR 12,
up from well below EUR 10 in 2007.
Diagram 2 shows that debit cards have become much more popular, and cash less
popular, during the past three years. Between 2007 and 2010, the proportion of POS
payments accounted for by debit card payments climbed by 9 percentage points
from 23% to 32%, whereas cash payments fell from 74% to 65%. Looking at the
trend in debit card payments as a percentage of the total value of all POS payments,
the growth rate is much less sharp, i.e. 3 percentage points from 56% to 59%. There
has been a comparable decline in the proportion of cash payments, from 41% to
38%. The main reason for this is that consumers have started using their debit cards
to pay for smaller amounts, which is why growth in numbers is much higher than
growth in terms of the size of the payments. If consumers continue in the same vein
in the years ahead, debit card payments will gradually account for an increasing
share of POS payments, and there will be a slight increase in the proportion of
consumer spending accounted for by debit card payments.
5 The annual figures for payments by debit card and prepaid card were obtained from Currence (2011).
The number of reported debit card payments by our respondents overestimated the true number of
debit card payments by about 20%. There are no indications that the number of cash payments were
overestimated as the number matched the figure found by EIM (2011) fairly well.
16
Cash usage in the Netherlands
Diagram 2: Usage of POS payment instruments in 2007 and 2010
Proportion of total number of POS payments
2010
2007
Prepaid
card
2%
Debit card
23%
Credit card
0.5%
Prepaid
card Credit card
3%
0.5%
Debit card
32%
Cash
65%
Cash
74%
Proportion of total value of POS payments
2007
Prepaid
card
0.4%
2010
Credit card
3%
Cash
38%
Cash
41%
Debit card
56%
Prepaid
card Credit card
0.4% 3%
Debit card
58%
The amount of use made of prepaid cards has remained virtually unchanged during
the past three years, whilst the use made of credit cards has edged up from 33
million in 2007 to 36 million transactions in 2010 (MOB, 2011).
3.2 The use of cash relative to the amount paid
Most payments made by consumers are small. They seldom pay large amounts.
Over one in three payments is worth less than EUR 5, while only three in 100
purchases involve EUR 100 or more. The average consumer payment is worth
EUR 20.58.
Diagram 3 shows the distribution of payments made in 2010, broken down by
payment instrument. At the forefront are cash payments of up to EUR 5: no fewer
than 27% of all purchases have a maximum value of EUR 5 and are paid in cash. As
shown by previous international studies (see Boeschoten, 1998; Bounie and François,
2006; Jonker, 2007; Klee, 2008; and Von Kalckreuth et al., 2009), the way in which
consumers pay correlates closely with the amount paid: small amounts are mostly
paid in cash, whilst debit cards are used relatively often for large amounts. The
17
Diagram 3: Breakdown of POS payment instruments by transaction value in 2010
40%
35%
30%
5%
3%
25%
20%
15%
1%
5%
1%
7%
27%
10%
14%
5%
12%
4%
0.3%
0.2%
3%
2%
4%
0%
<€ 5
€ 5 - € 10
€ 10 - € 20
€ 20 - € 30
Cash
€ 30 - € 40
Debit card
0.2%
2%
1%
€ 40 - € 50
1%
4%
2%
€ 50 - € 100
0.1%
2%
1%
>= € 100
Other
point at which consumers prefer to use debit cards rather than cash lies between
EUR 20 and EUR 30. However, consumers are more inclined to pay a large amount
in cash than to use their debit cards to pay small amounts.
Compared with 2007, consumers used their debit cards more often in 2010 to pay
for small amounts of up to EUR 20, and cash less often (see diagram 4). In three
years’ time, debit card payments as a proportion of aggregate payments of up to
EUR 20 rose from 13% to 20%, while the proportion accounted for by cash fell
from 83% to 71%. Not only are consumers using their debit cards more often to pay
for small amounts, they have also adopted new payment instruments, such as the
public transport chip card (OV-Chipkaart) to pay for public transport, and mobile
phones to pay parking fees.
Diagram 4: The use of cash, debit cards and other payment instruments to pay
for amounts of up to EUR 20 (in 2007 and 2010)
2007
2010
other
4%
debit card
13%
debit card
20%
cash
83%
18
other
9%
cash
71%
Cash usage in the Netherlands
3.3 The use of cash payments by market segment
Consumers taking part in the study also specified the market segments in which
they spent their money. Diagram 5 shows the breakdown of all cash spending in the
Netherlands by market segment, in terms of both numbers and value. In addition
to payments made in shops, hotels, bars and restaurants and fuel stations, and
to street vendors, the figures include spending on charity and payments between
individuals, such as between relatives, friends and acquaintances.
The most popular location for cash payments is the supermarket: a quarter of all
cash payments are made there. This applies to both the number of transactions
and the size of the payments. That said, for efficiency and safety reasons, Dutch
supermarkets have launched a campaign to encourage customers to pay with debit
cards rather than with cash. The supermarkets’ share of overall cash payments may
therefore decline in the years ahead. Consumers also often use cash to pay for
drinks and meals in bars and restaurants: 14% of all cash payments, representing
Diagram 5: Breakdown of cash payments by market segment in 2010
Supermarkets
Hotels, bars and restaurants
Food/tobacco shops
Non-food retail, low value purchase
Vending machine
Street vending
Fuel stations
Leisure, culture and entertainment
Department stores
Interior decoration,
DIY and garden centres
Retail clothing
Service providers
Transport
Non-food retail, high value purchase
Other
Charity
Family, friends, acquaintainces
0%
5%
10%
15%
Number
20%
25%
30%
Value
19
10% of cash spending, are made there. In the third place are shops selling food,
drinks and tobacco; 10% of all cash payments are made here. Cash is used least in
shops selling high-value non-food items such as consumer electronics, household
appliances, jewellery, and opticians and bicycle shops. 1% of all cash payments are
made in these types of shops, and the items that are paid for in cash here are in
fact relatively expensive. In terms of value, 10% of all cash payments are made in
these shops, thus taking this segment to the same spending level as hotels, bars and
restaurants in terms of value.
Consumers also use cash to transfer money to relatives, friends and acquaintances
(representing 8% in terms of numbers and 12% in terms of value), charity and good
causes (representing 6% in terms of numbers and 1% in terms of value).
The fact that most cash payments are made in supermarkets is in itself not very
surprising, as the supermarket is the place where the vast majority of payments are
made. In order to get a better picture of the role played by cash, we therefore need
to look at the total number of payments made in each of the segments and also at
the other payment instruments used by consumers.
Diagram 6 shows the relative use made of cash by market segment as compared
with debit cards and other payment instruments, in terms of both numbers and
transaction value. The role played by cash clearly differs sharply from one segment
to another. In segments in which purchase values are relatively high, such as fuel
stations and fashion and shoe shops, consumers pay with debit cards relatively
often. In segments with low average purchase values, such as street vending, bars
and restaurants, leisure and cultural institutions, and shops selling food, drinks
and tobacco, consumers generally use cash. However, the differences in cash
usage across market segments, may also reflect the different levels of penetration
of payment terminals across the different types of stores and market segments6,
or differences in retailers’ explicit pricing of payment instruments. Rysman (2007)
and Bolt, Humphrey and Uittenbogaard (2008), for example, demonstrate that
consumers’ choice of payment instruments is highly correlated with the level
of card acceptance by retailers, and Bolt et al. (2010) show that consumers react
strongly to the explicit pricing of payment instruments by retailers.
So although diagram 5 revealed that consumers make the majority of their cash
payments in supermarkets, diagram 6 shows that a significant proportion of
payments is made by debit card: 60% of all payments were in cash and 40% by
debit card. In terms of value, the debit card is actually dominant: 62% of total
6 About 90% of all Dutch retail traders are able to accept debit card payments. The levels of penetration
of payment terminals, however, considerably differ across different types of stores: supermarkets (100%),
fuel stations (100%), fashion stores (97%), specialized food stores (82%), catering (64%) and street vendors
(28%) (HBD, 2010; EIM, 2011).
20
Cash usage in the Netherlands
Diagram 6: Usage of payment instruments by market segment in 2010
Proportion of total number of payments, by market segment
0%
20%
Supermarket
Food/tobacco shop
Retail clothing
Non-food retail, low value purchase
Non-food retail, high value purchase
Interior decoration, DIY and garden centres
Department stores
Vending machine
Fuel stations
Hotels, bars and restaurants
Street vending
Leisure, culture and entertainment
Transport
Service providers
Other
Charity
Family, friends, acquaintainces
40%
60%
80%
100%
1
40
60
1
18
80
3
49
48
2
31
67
3
44
53
3
40
56
4
37
60
16
14
70
9
47
44
7
10
83
2 1
97
66
11
23
6
12
82
1
24
75
1
12
87
95
1 4
94
3 3
Proportion of total value by spending, by market segment
0%
Supermarket
Food/tobacco shop
Retail clothing
Non-food retail, low value purchase
Non-food retail, high value purchase
Interior decoration, DIY and garden centres
Department stores
Vending machine
Fuel stations
Hotels, bars and restaurants
Street vending
Leisure, culture and entertainment
Transport
Service providers
Other
Charity
Family, friends, acquaintainces
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
1
1
62
37
43
56
14
61
25
2
6
5
58
41
47
48
74
22
11
17
15
13
57
32
49
34
67
18
32
56
3
96
53
29
18
3
39
59
92
90
Debit card
1
39
60
Cash
1
8
33
58
2
7
6
3
Other
spending in supermarkets is by debit card as opposed to 37% in cash. The relatively
high usage made of other payment instruments in the transport segment is worth
noting. This is due to the fact that consumers often use sector-specific payment
instruments such as public transport prepaid cards in the transport sector.
Cash is by far the most popular payment instrument for donations to charity
and person-to-person payments. The payments industry is currently developing
electronic payment instruments such as mobile phones, to enable people to transfer
21
Diagram 7: Distribution of cash and electronic payments during the week in 2010
Proportion of the total number of all payments
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
11%
13%
6%
7%
6%
Thu
Fri
Sat
8%
9%
9%
9%
4%
5%
6%
Mo
Tue
Wed
6%
3%
Sun
Proportion of the total value of all payments
35%
30%
25%
20%
10%
15%
10%
5%
0%
4%
6%
Mo
4%
5%
9%
11%
9%
Tue
Wed
4%
Thu
Electronic
9%
13%
11%
Fri
Sat
2%
4%
Sun
Cash
money to each other. In time, these new instruments may evolve into a good
alternative for person-to-person payments in cash.
3.4 The use of cash during the week
As already shown by Jonker and Kosse (2009), the number and value of purchases
made by Dutch consumers fluctuates during the week (see diagram 7). Some 19% of
all weekly purchases are made on Saturdays, followed by Fridays (18%). On Sundays,
when shops are closed in most places, consumers make relatively few payments: 9%
of all weekly purchases are made on a Sunday.
Not only does the number of payments differ from day to day, the manner of
paying does, too. In terms of the number of transactions, consumers are on average
twice as likely to pay for their purchases in cash as with other, electronic payment
instruments. However, consumers use cash more often immediately before and
during the weekend than they do from Monday through Thursday. One possible
explanation for this is that they may be relatively more likely to visit bars, restaurants
and leisure facilities just before or during the weekend. In these market segments,
cash payments are more customary because of the combination of low transaction
values and the relatively low acceptance of payment cards.
22
Cash usage in the Netherlands
Diagram 8: Distribution of person-to-person payments during the week in 2010
25%
21%
20%
15%
15%
14%
12%
12%
Mo
Tue
16%
10%
10%
5%
0%
Wed
Thu
Fri
Sat
Sun
Looking at the distribution of payments over the week in terms of value, we see that
the bulk of spending takes place on Fridays. 23% of total consumer spending during
the week takes place on this day of the week, followed by Saturdays (20%). On
Sundays, consumers are substantially less active, with 6% of the value of spending
made on that day. Purchases made on Sundays are also smaller. The average value
of a cash payment on a Sunday is EUR 8.74. This is twice as low as the average cash
transaction on a Friday, i.e. EUR 19.44. In terms of the share of cash and electronic
payments in the total value of spending, the proportion accounted for by electronic
payments is higher than that accounted for by cash payments. This is due to the
fact that consumers mostly use debit cards to pay for more expensive purchases.
On average, the Dutch give money to people such as relatives, friends and
representatives of charities 0.84 times a week. The distribution of these payments
Diagram 9: Distribution of the value of person-to-person payments during the
week in 2010
Sun 12%
Mo 6%
Tue 9%
Wed 13%
Sat 24%
Thu 13%
Fri 23%
23
over the week follows more or less the same pattern as that of POS payments (see
diagram 8). Most payments are made on Fridays (16%) and Saturdays (21%), and
relatively few payments are made on Sundays (10%).
On average, people give EUR 14.28 to other people or good causes during the week.
The bulk of these payments is made on Fridays (23%) and Saturdays (24%) (see
diagram 9). At EUR 4, the average value of these payments is twice as high as
that of those made on other days. Evidently, different types of payments between
individuals are made on Fridays and Saturdays than on other days of the week. A
possible explanation may lie in family behaviour, in that children and grandchildren
are more likely to receive their pocket money and clothing allowances on these days.
24
Cash usage in the Netherlands
4 Who uses cash?
4.1 Number of cash payments per person per day
On average, the Dutch make about 1.6 payments per day, which equals some
11 payments a week. They use cash for most of these payments, with 1.12 cash
transactions a day, i.e. almost 8 a week. The Dutch use their debit cards 0.5 times
a day, i.e. 3.5 times a week.7 These are, however, averages, since both the total
number of payments and the number of cash transactions differ from one person to
another (see diagrams 10, 11 and 12). Overall, our findings correspond to the existing
theoretical and empirical payments literature that suggests an important role of
transaction characteristics and consumer characteristics in consumers’ payment
choice.8 As previous studies have shown (see, for example, Boeschoten, 1998;
Borzekowski et al., 2008; Jonker, 2007; Klee, 2008; Stavins, 2001), the use of cash
and debit cards differs by age, education and income level. Moreover, payment
behaviour varies according to ethnicity and region.
As diagrams 11 and 12 show, the older consumers are, the more likely they are to
use cash, whereas the average number of debit card payments sharply declines the
older they get. Young adults between the ages of 25 and 34, for instance, pay in cash
0.92 times a day and use their debit cards 0.64 times a day, whereas the over-75s
use cash 1.17 times and their debit cards 0.19 times a day on average. On average,
people from ethnic minorities make more purchases than people of ethnic Dutch
descent (1.8 purchases as opposed to 1.4 purchases per day respectively). They make
both more cash and debit card payments a day. There is hardly any variation in
the average number of cash payments made according to consumers’ educational
qualifications. The usage of debit cards, and with it the total number of purchases
7 These debit card estimates are calculated on the basis of actual debit card statistics provided by
Currence (the scheme owner of the Dutch debit card scheme) and the cash / debit card ratios found in
our survey. Please note again that the total research population equals 12,426,114 people.
8 In addition to consumer and transaction characteristics, the payments literature agrees that consumer
payment choice is influenced by financial incentives given by card issuers as well as merchants’ decisions
on card acceptance and surcharging. See Baumol (1952) and Tobin (1956) who developed the first
transaction demand models. Recent studies include Duca and Whitesell (1995), Shy and Tarkka (2002)
and Alvarez and Lippi (2009). The influence of merchants’ decisions and the optimal pricing of payments
was modeled for the first time by Baxter (1983), followed by among others Rochet and Tirole (2002),
Wright (2004, 2010), Hayashi (2006), Monnet and Roberds (2008) and McAndrews. and Wang (2008).
Bolt and Chakravorti (2010) provide a useful synopsis.
25
Diagram 10: Average number of POS payments per person per day in 2010
2.50
2.00
1.50
1.00
Age
Education
Gross annual
household income
Three big cities
West NL
North NL
East NL
South NL
< 13400 euro
13400 - 24600
24600 - 36400
36400 - 48200
48200 - 61000
61000 - 72800
72800 - 97400
> 97400 euro
Ethnic Dutch descent
Ethnically non-Dutch
Ethnicity
Primary education
Lower voc. - junior gen. secondary
Senior sec. voc. - pre-university
Higher professional
University
Other
Gender
12-24
25-34
35-44
45-54
55-64
65-74
75+
Man
Woman
0.00
Average
0.50
Region
per day, however, increases sharply as the standard of education rises. The number
of daily payments, especially the number of debit card payments, also rises in
line with household income. The region of residence also appears to influence
consumers’ purchasing and payment behaviour: people living in the north of the
country make significantly more debit card payments a day, compared to the rest
of the population, whereas people from the south are less frequent debit card users.
Diagram 11: Average number of cash payments at the POS per person per day
in 2010
1.50
1.00
26
Age
Education
Gross annual
household income
Three big cities
West NL
North NL
East NL
South NL
< 13400 euro
13400 - 24600
24600 - 36400
36400 - 48200
48200 - 61000
61000 - 72800
72800 - 97400
> 97400 euro
Ethnic Dutch descent
Ethnically non-Dutch
Ethnicity
Primary education
Lower voc. - junior gen. secondary
Senior sec. voc. - pre-university
Higher professional
University
Other
Gender
12-24
25-34
35-44
45-54
55-64
65-74
75+
Man
Woman
0.00
Average
0.50
Region
Cash usage in the Netherlands
Diagram 12: Average number of debit card payments per person per day in 2010
1.00
Age
Ethnicity
Education
Three big cities
West NL
North NL
East NL
South NL
< 13400 euro
13400 - 24600
24600 - 36400
36400 - 48200
48200 - 61000
61000 - 72800
72800 - 97400
> 97400 euro
Primary education
Lower voc. - junior gen. secondary
Senior sec. voc. - pre-university
Higher professional
University
Other
Gender
Ethnic Dutch descent
Ethnically non-Dutch
12-24
25-34
35-44
45-54
55-64
65-74
75+
Man
Woman
0.00
Average
0.50
Gross annual
household income
Region
Note: estimates presented in diagram 10, 11 and 12 are based on weighted data. All reported differences
are significant at the 5% level, except for gender.
Diagram 13: Usage of POS payment instruments, according to personal
characteristics in 2010
100%
2%
3% 1%
1% 2%
5% 5% 2%
90%
80%
33%
34%
32%
29%
70%
39%
15%
30%
34% 34%
36%
1% 4%
2% 4%
20%
33%
33%
10%
36%
30%
38%
2%
2%
16%
30%
2%
5% 5% 10%
7% 4%
27%
36% 38%
35% 23%
36% 35%
31%
36% 34%
32%
39%
59%
62% 64% 65% 66%
69%
32%
42%
60%
50%
92%
40%
30%
65%
64% 67%
66%
56%
62% 66% 64%
70%
84%
66% 64%
71%
62% 58%
55%
61%
20%
68%
74%
63% 61% 59% 60%
47%
Age
Cash
Education
Debit card
Gross annual
household income
Other
Three big cities
West NL
North NL
East NL
South NL
< 13400 euro
13400 - 24600
24600 - 36400
36400 - 48200
48200 - 61000
61000 - 72800
72800 - 97400
> 97400 euro
Ethnic Dutch descent
Ethnically non-Dutch
Ethnicity
Primary education
Lower voc. - junior gen. secondary
Senior sec. voc. - pre-university
Higher professional
University
Other
Gender
12-24
25-34
35-44
45-54
55-64
65-74
75+
Man
Woman
0%
Average
10%
Region
Note: estimates based on weighted data. All reported differences are significant at the 5% level, except
for gender.
27
4.2 Share of cash payments in the total number of payments
On average, the Dutch pay for 65% of all their POS purchases in cash. Debit cards
are used for 32% of transactions and the remaining 4% are paid for by other means
of payment. These are averages, however, as the degree to which consumers use
cash too, varies widely from one person to another (see diagram 13).
Cash usage is relatively high among seniors and the elderly. People aged between
65 and 75 use cash for 70% of their purchases, and the over-75s pay for as much as
92% of their purchases in cash. This is much higher than the comparable figure
for young adults and middle-aged people (i.e. about 60%), who use their debit
cards, credit cards and their e-purse relatively often. Cash is also often used by
people with relatively low levels of education or income. In particular, consumers
with educational history beyond primary school and a gross annual income of less
than EUR 24,600 often pay a relatively high share of their purchases in cash. The
higher their level of education and the higher their income bracket, the more likely
consumers are to use debit cards rather than cash. In addition, people in the south
of the country use cash relatively often, whereas people in the northern part of the
country use debit cards relatively often.
4.3 Amount of cash in people’s pocket
On average, the respondents had EUR 41.42 in their pockets at the beginning of
their survey day. However, there are significant variations between the different
population groups (see diagram 14). Men, for instance, have EUR 10 more on
average on them than women do. Moreover, people significantly carry more money
on them as their age increases. The amount of cash in people’s pockets also rises
according to their level of education and income, and varies according to living
region and ethnic background.
That said, not all Dutch people always have cash on them. Of all respondents, 7.5%
said that they had no cash at all on them at the start of their registration day. This
percentage is relatively high among young people aged between 12 and 24 (about
10%), among people living in one of the three large cities (11%) and among those
with a gross annual income of less than EUR 13,400 (11%). Middle-aged people,
elderly people, people with a high level of education, high earners, and people
living in the south of the country are relatively less likely to have no cash on them
at all (see diagram 15).
4.4 How people acquire cash
The respondents were asked to state whether they had withdrawn or received
cash on the day they recorded their transactions (changes received not included).
28
Cash usage in the Netherlands
Diagram 14: Amount of cash in people’s pockets, according to personal
characteristics in 2010
80
70
In euro
60
50
40
30
20
Age
Ethnicity
Education
Gross annual
household income
Three big cities
West NL
North NL
East NL
South NL
< 13400 euro
13400 - 24600
24600 - 36400
36400 - 48200
48200 - 61000
61000 - 72800
72800 - 97400
> 97400 euro
Primary education
Lower voc. - junior gen. secondary
Senior sec. voc. - pre-university
Higher professional
University
Other
Gender
Ethnic Dutch descent
Ethnically non-Dutch
12-24
25-34
35-44
45-54
55-64
65-74
75+
0
Man
Woman
10
Region
Note: estimates based on weighted data. All reported differences are significant at the 5% level, except
for ethnicity, which is significant at the 10%.
Diagram 15: Proportion of respondents with no cash on them at the beginning
of their registration day, according to personal characteristics in 2010
14%
12%
10%
8%
6%
4%
Ethnicity
Education
Gross annual
household income
Three big cities
West NL
North NL
East NL
South NL
> 97400 euro
72800 - 97400
61000 - 72800
48200 - 61000
36400 - 48200
24600 - 36400
< 13400 euro
13400 - 24600
University
Higher professional
Senior sec. voc. - pre-university
Primary education
Ethnic Dutch descent
Ethnically non-Dutch
75+
65-74
55-64
35-44
25-34
45-54
Age
Lower voc. - junior gen. secondary
Gender
12-24
Man
Woman
0%
Average
2%
Region
Note: estimates based on weighted data. All reported differences are significant at the 5% level, except
for gender and ethnicity.
29
Diagram 16: Have you withdrawn or received cash today?
Withdrawn at
bank branches;
1%
No;
85%
Cashback
in shops;
4%
Given by
someone;
34%
Yes;
15%
Withdrawn
from ATM;
56%
Other;
5%
About 15% of respondents said that they had (see diagram 16). In most cases (54%),
consumers get their cash from ATMs. They also regularly receive money from other
people, such as relatives, colleagues and friends (34%). In only 4% of cases, people
obtained cash by asking for cashbacks in shops. Other sources of cash mentioned
relatively often include ‘found in the street’ (1%), ‘money received from a retailer after
returning a purchase’ (2%) and ‘work/income’ (1%).
Based on these findings, we have made a rough estimate of how often the Dutch
withdraw money from ATMs per week, month and year, and how often they
obtain cash in other ways (see table 2). On average, consumers use ATMs 2.5 times
a month, withdrawing EUR 110 on average. The Dutch receive money from other
people approximately 1.5 times a month. These person-to-person gifts and receipts
are worth EUR 34 on average. Consumers rarely go to bank branches to withdraw
money. They do so approximately 0.7 times a year, often withdrawing relatively
large amounts, EUR 793 on average. Cashback (in which a retailer adds an amount
to the total purchase paid by debit card and the customer receives that amount in
cash along with the purchase) is not very popular. Consumers use this option just
over more than twice a year. The average amount involved is EUR 44.
The way in which Dutch consumers obtain their cash varies sharply according
to personal characteristics (see diagram 17). Compared with other age categories,
young people aged between 12 and 24 use ATMs relatively less frequently. Instead,
they receive money from other people relatively often (e.g. pocket money and
clothing allowances). The elderly use cashback in shops relatively often, and they
also receive money in other ways relatively frequently. Withdrawal and receipt
30
Cash usage in the Netherlands
Table 2: Number and value of cash withdrawals and receipts, by source in 2010
Average
Average
Average
Average value
number per
number per
number per
(EUR)
person per
person per
person per
week
month
year
Cash withdrawals from ATMs
0.6
2.5
29.6
EUR 110 9
Cash withdrawals from banks
0.0
0.1
0.7
EUR 793 10
Cashbacks in shops
0.0
0.2
2.2
EUR 44
Received from other people
0.3
1.5
17.7
EUR 34
Other
0.0
0.2
2.5
EUR 23
Note: estimates based on weighted data.
9 10
9 These estimates fairly correspond to the official DNB Statistics, according to which the total number
of cash withdrawals made at Dutch ATMs in 2010 equaled 434 million, with an average value of EUR 119.
These numbers include withdrawals made by Dutch as well as foreign consumers with both debit and
credit cards.
10 These estimates slightly differ from the official DNB Statistics, according to which the total number
of cash withdrawals made at Dutch bank branches in 2010 equaled 6.7 million, with an average value of
EUR 930.
Diagram 17: How people obtain their cash, according to personal
characteristics in 2010
80%
33
32
34
70%
25
28
30
28
17
34
32
33
31
27
28
34
36
34
21
60%
9
32
51
61
28
20
60
70
40
50%
5
40%
30%
39
39%
26
48
57
31
54
23
Average
90%
South NL
100%
57
64
56
20%
66
62
58
60
66
54
62
44
59
54
62
65
56
59
66
71
69
60
65
31
51%
45
32
Ethnicity
Education
Withdrawals from bank branches
Gross annual household income
Cashback in shops
Received from others
East NL
West NL
North NL
Three big cities
> 97400 euro
72800 - 97400
61000 - 72800
48200 - 61000
36400 - 48200
24600 - 36400
< 13400 euro
13400 - 24600
University
Higher professional
Senior sec. voc. - pre-university
Primary education
Ethnically non-Dutch
Ethnic Dutch descent
75+
65-74
55-64
45-54
35-44
25-34
Age
Withdrawals from ATMs
Lower voc. - junior gen. secondary
Gender
12-24
Man
0%
Woman
10%
Region
Other
Note: estimates based on weighted data. All reported shares of ATM withdrawals, cashbacks and receipts
differ significantly from each other at the 5% level, except for gender and ethnicity. The shares of
withdrawals from bank branches only differ significantly for gender and education, but at the 10% only.
31
Diagram 18: Average amount withdrawn from ATMs, according to personal
characteristics in 2010
250
200
150
euro
100
Ethnicity
Education
Gross annual
household income
Three big cities
West NL
North NL
East NL
South NL
> 97400 euro
72800 - 97400
61000 - 72800
48200 - 61000
36400 - 48200
24600 - 36400
< 13400 euro
13400 - 24600
University
Higher professional
Senior sec. voc. - pre-university
Primary education
Ethnic Dutch descent
Ethnically non-Dutch
75+
65-74
55-64
35-44
25-34
45-54
Age
Lower voc. - junior gen. secondary
Gender
12-24
Man
Woman
0
Average
50
Region
Note: estimates based on weighted data. All reported differences are significant at the 5% level, except
for gender and ethnicity.
behaviour also differs according to the level of education. Those with a low level
of education receive cash from other people relatively more often, whereas those
with a high educational level obtain their money mainly from ATMs. The highest
earners receive money from other people, or in other ways than from an ATM,
relatively often. People living in the western part of the country also receive their
cash from third parties relatively more often than people in the rest of the country.
The amount of money that the Dutch withdraw from ATMs also varies sharply
from one individual to another (see diagram 18). The average amount withdrawn
increases with age: young people aged between 12 and 24 withdraw approximately
EUR 42 at a time, whereas the elderly (i.e. the over-75s) take out more than EUR 215
on average. The amounts withdrawn also decrease as the level of education rises:
people with no educational history beyond primary school withdraw EUR 174 in
one go on average, while people with a university education withdraw slightly less
than EUR 90 at a time.
32
Cash usage in the Netherlands
5 Constraints
In recent years, Dutch consumers have started to make more and more use of bank
cards to pay for their purchases, rather than paying for them in cash. Various trends
have contributed to this. One of them is the increase in the number of outlets in
the Netherlands where consumers can use their debit cards. Secondly, fewer and
fewer shop-owners now require consumers to pay a surcharge for using a debit
card for minor purchases. Thirdly, major awareness-raising campaigns have been
launched on TV and in shops, encouraging consumers to make more use of their
debit cards. In order to ascertain whether consumers felt any constraints in their
choice of payment options in 2010, our respondents were asked to indicate for each
purchase whether they had paid for it with the instrument of their choice. If this
had not been the case, they were asked why not and how they would have preferred
to pay.
5.1 Perceived constraints for each payment instrument
Our findings show that the Dutch are very satisfied with the payment options
offered by retailers. In their daily purchases, they experience hardly any constraints
in relation to their payment options (see diagram 19). Only 3% of all payments
were not paid in the desired manner. Consumers cited debit cards least often as the
Diagram 19: Proportion of consumers who would rather have used another
payment instrument, by instrument used in 2010
As a % of the total number of payments
10%
8%
6%
4%
5%
3%
3%
Total
Cash
2%
0%
4%
2%
Debit card
Prepaid card
Credit card
Note: estimates based on weighted data. All reported differences are significant at the 5% level.
33
Diagram 20: Where were consumers unable to pay with their preferred
payment instrument in 2010
As a % of the total number of payments per market segment
Vending machines
Non-food retail, high value purchase
Transport
Service providers
Leisure, culture and entertainment
Supermarkets
Retail clothing
Food/tobacco shops
Hotels, bars and restaurants
Street trade
Interior decoration, DIY and garden centres
Fuel stations
Non-food retail, low value purchase
Department stores
6.5%
5.5%
5.5%
3.6%
2.5%
2.5%
2.2%
2.2%
2.2%
2.1%
1.9%
1.7%
1.5%
1.0%
Total
0%
2.6%
1%
2%
3%
4%
5%
6%
7%
8%
Note: estimates based on weighted data. All reported differences are significant at the 5% level.
payment instrument they would rather not have used (2%), followed by cash (3%).
Prepaid cards were cited most frequently as the payment instrument they had used
to pay, despite the fact that they were not their first choice (5%).
Whether or not consumers were able to use their preferred payment instrument
depends on the market segment in question (see diagram 20). Consumers are
significantly often not able to pay as they would have liked when making purchases
from sweets, drinks or snacks vending machines (6.5%), They are most satisfied
with the payment options in department stores, where only 1% of purchases were
not paid for with the instrument of their choice. This is because department stores
accept a broad range of payment instruments, whereas consumers using vending
machines can only pay with one single instrument.
In addition to their preferred payment instrument not being accepted (40%),
consumers reported several other reasons why they were not always able to pay as
they would have liked (see diagram 21). These included having to pay a surcharge
for the use of their preferred payment instrument (5%), not being able to use it
because the POS terminal was out of order (4%), and having to pay by debit card
because the retailer did not have enough change (1%). However, it is not always
due to the retailer or the equipment that consumers are not able to pay as they
would have preferred. In a fair number of cases, consumers stated that they did not
have their preferred payment instrument with them (20%). Moreover, in certain
instances they were not able to use their prepaid cards because the balance on the
card was not sufficient (3%).
34
Cash usage in the Netherlands
Diagram 21: Reasons why consumers did not use their preferred payment
instrument in 2010
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
40%
Preferred payment instrument not accepted
21%
Preferred payment instrument not with me
5%
Surcharge for using preferred payment instrument
4%
Payment terminal out of order
Sufficient cash on me
3%
Insufficient balance
3%
Not enough change available
45%
1%
24%
No answer
5.2 Used instrument versus preferred instrument
So which payment instrument would consumers actually have preferred to use?
Diagram 22 shows the instrument actually used relative to the preferred instrument.
The majority of people who were forced to pay in cash, would have preferred to use
either a debit card (74%) or a prepaid card (11%). The opposite applies in the case
of people who would rather not have used their debit cards: 69% of them would
rather have paid in cash and 8% would have preferred to use a prepaid card. Those
who used their prepaid cards in spite of preferring to use another instrument also
said they would have preferred using cash (60%) or a debit card (23%).
Used, second choice
Diagram 22: Used instrument versus preferred instrument in 2010
Prepaid card
60%
Debit card
23%
69%
Cash
8%
74%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
2%
5%
11%
50%
60%
70%
15%
80%
18%
3%
12%
90%
100%
Preferred payment instrument
Cash
Debit card
Prepaid card
Credit card
Other
35
5.3 Perceived constraints according to personal characteristics
Just over 4% of respondents said that they had not used their preferred payment
instrument for one or more transactions. This is an average, however, as the degree
to which people experience constraints in their choice of payment instrument
differs according to their personal characteristics.
The older consumers are, the least often they feel constrained in their choice of
payment instrument. Whereas 7% of young people aged between 12 and 24 said
that they were not always able to pay with their preferred instrument, only 1%
of people over 75 reported the same thing. In part, this can be explained by the
fact that elderly people often pay in cash, which they can use almost everywhere.
The elderly in particular experience constraints when they want to use a debit
card or prepaid card. For them, the fact that debit cards and prepaid cards are not
accepted everywhere is not the only constraint, as it is for other age groups. They
are frequently unable to pay by debit card or prepaid card because they forgot to
bring their card with them. Forgetting a means of payments is not just a problem
for seniors and the elderly, by the way. People of up to 35 years of age who had
intended to pay in cash were not always able to do so because they had either no
or not enough cash on them.
Diagram 23: Proportion of respondents who did not pay with their preferred
instrument, by personal characteristics in 2010
14
12%
12
10%
10
7%
Gender
Age
3%
5%
5% 5%
4%
3% 4%
6%
4%
3%
2%
6%
4% 4%
Ethnicity
Education
Gross annual
household income
Three big cities
West NL
North NL
East NL
South NL
> 97400 euro
72800 - 97400
61000 - 72800
48200 - 61000
36400 - 48200
24600 - 36400
< 13400 euro
13400 - 24600
University
1%
Higher professional
55-64
45-54
35-44
25-34
12-24
Man
Woman
Average
0
3%
2%
Senior sec. voc. - pre-university
3% 4%
2
5%
Primary education
4%
7%
6%
5%
Lower voc. - junior gen. secondary
6%
Ethnic Dutch descent
Ethnically non-Dutch
4
4%
5%
75+
6
65-74
8
Region
Note: estimates based on weighted data. All reported differences are significant at the 5% level, except
for gender and region.
36
Cash usage in the Netherlands
The frequency with which respondents were able to use their preferred payment
instrument varies according to the ethnical background, with people of ethnic
Dutch descent facing less often constraints (3%) than others (10%). The main reason
why they were not able to use their debit cards as often as they would have liked
was because the acceptance rate of debit cards is relatively low in the outlets where
they make their purchases.
Educational background also plays a role. People with a secondary vocational
qualification pay significantly more frequently as they want than people with
only primary education and university graduates. Consumers with a low level of
education would like to use their debit cards more often, but do not do so for
various reasons: their cards are not accepted, they forgot to bring them along, or
they are charged a surcharge for using a debit card. University graduates said that
they would like to use their debit card or prepaid card more often, but were unable
to do so because either the payment terminal was out of order or their card was not
accepted. The influence of income on the proportion of people who do not always
pay as they would have preferred is fairly small, with one exception. The proportion
of people on an income of between EUR 61,000 and EUR 72,800 who report not
being able to use their preferred payment instrument is significantly high (12%).
5.4 Recorded and desired POS payment behaviour in 2010
Supposing that everyone in the Netherlands had been able to pay for their POS
purchases with the payment instrument of their choice, what sort of payment
behaviour would we then have seen in the Netherlands in 2010? Table 3 shows
how the Dutch actually paid in 2010 and how they would have paid if they had
consistently been able to use their preferred payment instrument.
There are no major shifts to be discerned, as the Dutch made 97% of their
payments with their preferred payment instrument. The number of cash payments
would, however, have been 1.7% lower at 4.3 billion and the number of debit card
payments would have been 2.4% higher (at 2.2 billion) had everyone been able to
use their preferred payment instrument. At 40 million transactions, the number
of credit card payments would have been 12.5% higher than actually recorded and
the number of prepaid card payments would have been 0.8% lower, at 177 million.
The annual number of debit card payments grew by 10.7% between 2007 and 2010. This
is significantly higher than the difference between the actual and the desired number
of debit card payments in 2010. This shows that the changes in Dutch consumer
payment behaviour over the years are not only due to the removal of constraints
preventing them from using their favourite payment instruments. Other factors are
also involved, including demographic changes, technological developments resulting
in better payment instruments and the creation of new ones, and the influence
37
Table 3: Actual and desired number of POS payments by payment instrument
in 2010 11
Actual number
Desired number
(in millions)
(in millions)
Difference
Cash payments
4,371
4,297
–1.7%
Debit cards
2,154
2,206
+2.4%
Prepaid cards
178
177
–0.8%
Credit cards
36
40
+12.5%
of consumer campaigns. These external factors influence consumers’ payment
preferences and produce gradual changes in their payment behaviour over time.
11 In addition to cash, debit cards, prepaid cards and credit cards, respondents were also able to indicate
which other payment instruments they had used, such as fuel cards, customer loyalty cards and public
transport chip cards. Due to their limited frequency of use, these payment instruments have not been
included in the table. The actual and desired usage of these instruments was, however, included in the
calculations of behavioral shifts, which is why the totals of the ‘actual’ and ‘desired’ columns are not the
same.
38
Cash usage in the Netherlands
6 International comparison
Besides the Netherlands, various other countries have studied the payment
behaviour of their residents. The main purpose of these studies was to better
understand consumers’ payment behaviour and the factors that influence it, such
as the costs of certain payment instruments, the speed of payments, security and
budget management (see, for instance, Bagnall and Flood, 2011 for Australia; Arango
and Hoggs, 2010 and Arango et al. 2011 for Canada; Jacobsen and Nielsen, 2011 for
Denmark; Deutsche Bundesbank, 2010 for Germany; The Payments Council, 2011
for the UK). A number of international payment surveys have also been performed
as part of a study into payment costs. The researchers undertaking the latter study
need information on the number and value of the transactions performed with
different payment instruments (see, for instance, Turján et al., 2011 for Hungary;
Gresvik and Haare, 2008 for Norway). The results of these studies, highlighting POS
payments and the research methods, are summarised in Table 4.
6.1 POS payment behaviour
A comparison of international studies shows that consumers in the countries
under review make about two purchases a day. There are vast differences, however.
The Australians and the British make slightly more than two purchases a day on
average, while the Danes and the Norwegians make one or fewer payments a day on
average. At 1.6, the average number of payments made per day in the Netherlands
lies somewhere in the middle.
In almost all studies, consumers say that they make the majority of their payments
in cash, followed by the debit card. On the whole, consumers in the countries
studied make approximately one cash payment a day and one debit card payment
every two days, as do the Dutch. Again, there are differences between the countries.
The Danes use cash almost as often as their debit cards, whereas the Norwegians
hardly use any cash, and mainly pay by debit card. Generally speaking, consumers
do not make much use of other payment instruments such as credit cards, except
in the US and the UK, where consumers use their credit cards relatively often,
although not more often than their debit cards.
39
The choice of payment instrument differs according to the transaction value in all
countries. Consumers usually pay for small amounts in cash and use their debit
cards for larger amounts. The average or median purchase value of a cash payment
is three to four times lower than that of a debit card payment. In most countries, the
average amount paid by credit card is higher than that paid by debit card.
121314
Table 4: Summary of findings of international payment studies
Netherlands
Australia
Canada
Denmark
Germany
Hungary
1.6
n.a.
Norway
UK
Results
No. POS trx.
a person a day
1.6
2.2
1.7
1.0
0.8
2.1
Of which:
Cash
1.0
1.4
0.9
0.5
1.3
0.8
0.2
1.1
Debit card
0.5
0.7
0.4
0.5
0.2
n.a.
0.6
0.4
Credit card
0.01
0.4
0.02
0.02
n.a.
0.1
0.2
Av. value 12:
Cash
EUR 12.19
AUS $ 12 13
CAN $ 19.17
Kr 190
EUR 20.11
HUF 2900
NOK 218
GBP 10
Debit card
EUR 37.56
AUS $ 38
CAN $ 60.94
Kr 316
EUR 61.51
HUF 6990.68
NOK 370
GBP 45
Credit card
EUR 111.00
AUS $ 50
CAN $ 89.38
Kr 530
EUR 76.69
HUF 8157.10
NOK 628
GBP 41
Av. value 14:
Cash
EUR 12.19
EUR 8.47
EUR 12.17
EUR 25.51
EUR 20.11
EUR 10.93
EUR 27.73
EUR 11.74
Debit card
EUR 37.56
EUR 26.82
EUR 38.68
EUR 42.42
EUR 61.51
EUR 26.35
EUR 47.06
EUR 52.80
Credit card
EUR 111.00
EUR 35.29
EUR 56.73
EUR 71.15
EUR 76.69
EUR 30.74
EUR 79.87
EUR 48.11
Research
Residents
Residents
Residents
Residents
Speakers of
Main payers in
Residents
Residents
population
12 +
18 +
18 – 75
15 – 79
German 18 +
household
16 +
16 +
Sample size
7.499
1.241
3,190 diaries
and 6.800 questionnaires
1.294
2.272
300
2.608
2.000
Survey period
5 Sep –
6 Oct 2010
25 Oct –
19 Nov 2010
Nov
2009
22 Sept –
24 Oct 2010
Early
summer 2008
1 week mid Sept 2010
Whole of
2009
Scope
POS & P2P
POS & remote
POS
POS
On-line or
phone survey
Paper diary
yes
yes
Method of
data collection
Use of diary?
Diary registration period
1 day
1 week
Paper & on-line On-line or
survey
phone survey
yes
3 days
?
1 week
POS, P2P &
POS, P2P &
Cash payments
remote
remote
POS, P2P &
on-line
On-line
survey
Personal
interview
Phone survey
yes
no
no
yes
-
4 weeks
throughout
the year
1 week
-
On-line
survey
12 Average transaction value as published in the relevant research reports.
13 Mean transaction value in stead of average value.
14 Average transaction value converted to euros based on the exchange rate prevailing on day 1 of the
relevant research period. For Hungary the exchange rate prevailing on 31 December 2009 was used.
40
Cash usage in the Netherlands
6.2 Research methods used
Although the research methods used in the various country studies to collect data
on consumer payment behaviour are broadly similar, there are certain differences.
As already shown by Jonker and Kosse (2009), variations in the research methods
may lead to variations in the eventual results.
First of all, the scope of the studies varies. Most of them focus on both POS payments
and remote payments. The Danish, Dutch and Canadian studies, however, focus
specifically on POS payments. In addition to consumer-to-business payments, the
Dutch study also includes person-to-person payments (which are not included in
Table 4, by the way).
The number of respondents varies from 1,241 in the Australian study to 7,499 in the
Dutch study. The differences in the numbers of respondents taking part are partly
attributable to variations in the number of days on which the respondents reported
their payment transactions. In order to be able to collect sufficient transaction
data, countries that opted for short recording periods worked with a larger sample.
The Hungarian study used a sample of 300 households.15 In all studies, the survey
findings were reweighed to ensure that they were representative for the population.
The studies also vary somewhat in terms of the age profile of the research population.
The Netherlands and Canada are at opposite ends of the scale. The Dutch study
included consumers from the age of 12 and did not set an upper age limit, whereas
the Canadian study focused on adults up to the age of 75. These variations in
age profiles may have influenced the payment statistics shown in Table 4. Young
people and the elderly use cash relatively frequently and payment cards relatively
infrequently. The inclusion of young people and the elderly therefore leads to a
rise in the average number of cash payments and a decline in the average number
of card payments.
The studies also differ in terms of the methods used for collecting payment
data. The Hungarian and Norwegian respondents were asked about the payment
characteristics of their purchases of the day before (Norway) or of last day
(Hungary), i.e. in retrospect. In the other studies, respondents recorded the payment
characteristics of their purchases in a diary. The advantage of this method is that it
helps people to recall as much as possible about their payments and to report on
them in detail (see Jonker and Kosse, 2009). The length of the recording period,
however, varies in each study. The Dutch study used the shortest period, i.e. one
day, and the UK study used the longest period, i.e. four weeks. Despite the fact that
15 Households were asked about the payment instruments that all household members had used for
purchases the previous day. The information thus collected was used to estimate the number and value
of cash payments. Payments made with other payment instruments were drawn from payment statistics.
41
a longer recording period may lead to diary fatigue and diary exhaustion (see Jonker
and Kosse, 2009) and the understating of small, everyday payments in particular,
the UK respondents reported making more payments per day than the Dutch did.
The British researchers may have been better at encouraging their respondents to
keep recording all their payments over a four-week period, but it may equally be
true that British consumers simply make more purchases and payments than their
Dutch counterparts do.
The studies in which a transaction diary was used also differ from each other in the
way in which the information recorded in the diaries was reported to the research
agency. In most studies, the respondents reported their payments at the end of
the recording period by filling in a questionnaire, either on-line or by means of
a telephone interview. During these supplementary interviews, respondents were
asked not only about their recorded payments, but also about their reasons for
choosing a given payment instrument. This did not apply to the Australian
respondents, who were the only one who were able to send their paper diaries
directly to the researchers.
With the exception of the UK study, in which the fieldwork was spread out over
the whole year, most data was collected during a representative week or month
of the year. It is preferable from a research viewpoint to collect data throughout
the year, as this takes account of the potential effects of public and other holidays
and seasonal factors on consumer purchasing and payment behaviour. This study
modality is much more expensive, however.
Whether the methodological differences between the various country studies
influenced the end results is difficult to say. As generally applies to surveys in
which questionnaires or self-reported diaries are used to study consumer behaviour,
all the above studies are susceptible to various types of error that may cause the
findings to deviate from reality. These include sampling errors, coverage errors,
non-response errors and measurement errors. Yet they do provide a basically fair
picture of country-specific payment habits in a selection of countries and allow for
a rough cross-country comparison.
42
Cash usage in the Netherlands
7 Conclusions
Dutch consumers made 5 billion cash payments in 2010. Of these, 4.4 billion were
made in shops. The total value of cash spending came to EUR 62 billion, EUR 53
billion of which was spent on purchases made in shops, hotels, bars, restaurants and
fuel stations, from street vendors and at other points-of-sale. In addition, Dutch
consumers made 674 million cash payments to relatives, colleagues, friends and
charities in 2010, representing a total value of EUR 9 billion. On average, Dutch
consumers have EUR 41.24 in their pockets.
Cash is the most frequently used payment instrument in shops: 65% of all POS
transactions are made in cash. Cash is gradually playing a less prominent role,
however, among others, because consumers are now using their debit cards more
and more often. Whilst a total of 5.2 billion cash payments and 1.6 billion debit
card payments were made in 2007, there were only 4.4 billion cash payments and
2.2 billion debit card payments in 2010. The number of cash payments in shops has
thus fallen by 17% in three years, whereas the number of debit card transactions
increased by 38%.
How Dutch consumers pay depends partly on their personal characteristics. Gender,
age, educational background, household income, ethnicity and region of residence
influence consumer payment behaviour to a greater or lesser extent. Middle-aged
people, people with a low level of education and people from the south of the
country, for instance, pay in cash relatively often. The type of purchase and the
type of shop also affect the payment instrument used. Consumers pay mainly in
cash for small purchases of up to EUR 20 in value, which means that large numbers
of cash payments are made in market segments where average transaction values
are low, such as in specialist food and drink shops, the catering industry, vending
machines, and on street markets. Consumers also often use cash for person-toperson payments, i.e. to relatives and friends.
Dutch consumers are able to use their preferred payment instrument for the vast
majority of their payments. They revert to other payment instruments in less than
3% of transactions. However, specific consumer groups experience more constraints
than the average consumer. These groups include young people, people with a low
level of education and university graduates. Most of them would like to be able
43
to use their debit cards more often. In certain retail segments, such as machines
dispensing sweets, drinks and snacks, and in the case of purchases made from
non-food retailers with high transaction values and public transport operators,
consumers are more likely to be unable to pay as they would like. Overall, there
would have been 1.7% fewer cash payments and 2.4% more debit card payments
in 2010 if everyone had been able to make all their payments with their favourite
payment instrument.
The gradual replacement of cash payments by debit card payments is conducive to
social efficiency and security, as debit card payments are usually cheaper than cash
for banks and retailers16, and retailers with small amounts of cash on the premises
are less likely to be robbed. In view of the large number of cash payments and the
popularity of debit card payments throughout the population, there remains great
scope for the further substitution of cash by debit card. Most of these opportunities
are in relation to purchases of less than EUR 20 spent in supermarkets and bars,
in making purchases from food and drinks retailers, non-food retailers with low
transaction values, vending machines and at street markets. The publicity campaigns
encouraging the use of debit cards in specific market segments will speed up the
substitution process, as they encourage consumers to use their debit cards more
often in these segments, for both large and small amounts. Debit card usage should
also increase further if groups of consumers who now pay mostly in cash, such as
consumers with a low level of education and the over-65s, start using their debit
cards more often. Examining the reasons why they are currently less likely to use
debit cards should help to improve our understanding of any constraints they may
experience. Young people also stated relatively often that they would like to make
greater use of their debit cards. Further research is therefore recommended in order
to obtain a better picture of the perceived constraints. The findings could be used
as the basis for further action on the supply side of the market, i.e. among shopowners. This is because a further shift from cash to electronic payments requires a
behavioural change among consumers as well as retailers.
16 See for example EIM (2011) and Bolt and Chakravorti (2010)
44
Cash usage in the Netherlands
References
Alvarez F., and F. Lippi, (2009), Financial Innovation and the Transactions Demand
for Cash, Econometrica, 77(2), 363-402
Arango, C. and D. Hoggs (2010), Cash, debit or credit: where, when and why?,
presentation given at the “Consumer payment choice and the demand for money”
research workshop organised by the Österreichische Nationalbank, July 1, 2010,
Vienna.
Arango, C., Huynh, K. and L. Sabetti (2011), How do you pay? The role of incentives
at the POS, Bank of Canada Working Paper, 2011-23.
Bagnall, J., Chong S. and K. Smith (2011), Strategic review of innovation in the
payments system: results of the Reserve Bank of Australia’s 2010 consumer payments
use study, Reserve Bank of Australia.
Bagnall, J. and D. Flood (2011), Cash use in Australia: new survey evidence, RBA
Bulletin, September Quarter 2011, 55-62.
Baumol, W.J., (1952), The Transaction Demand for Cash: An Inventory Theoretic
Approach, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 66, 545-556.
Baxter, W.P. (1983), Bank Interchange of Transactional Paper: Legal Perspectives,
Journal of Law and Economics, 26, 541-588.
Boeschoten, W. (1998), Cash management, payment patterns and the demand for
money, De Economist, 146(1), 117-142.
Bolt, W., D. Humphrey and R. Uittenbogaard (2008), The effect of transaction
pricing on the adoption of electronic payments: A cross-country comparison,
International Journal of Central Banking, 4(1), 89-123
Bolt, W. and S. Chakravorti (2010), Digitization of retail payments, DNB Working
Paper, 270, De Nederlandsche Bank.
45
Bolt, W., N. Jonker and C. van Renselaar (2010), Incentives at the counter: an
empirical analysis of surcharging card payments and payment behaviour in the
Netherlands, Journal of Banking and Finance, 34(8), 1738-1744.
Borzekowski, R., E.K. Kiser and S. Ahmed (2008), Consumers’ use of debit cards:
patterns, preferences and price response, Journal of Money, Credit and Banking 40(1),
149-172.
Bounie, D. and A. François (2006), Cash, check or bank card? The effects of
transaction characteristics on the use of payment instruments, Telecom Paris
Economics and Social Sciences Working Paper ESS-06-05.
Currence (2011), Annual Report 2010, Currence, Amsterdam.
Deutsche Bundesbank (2010), Where does the cash in your wallet come from? An
empirical study of the cash withdrawal behaviour of the German population at
ATMs and bank counters in Germany, Discussion Paper Series 1: Economic Studies,
201/2011, Deutsche Bundesbank.
Dotsey, M. (1988), The Demand for Currency in the United States, Journal of Money,
Credit and Banking, 20(1), 22-40.
Duca, J.V. and W.C. Whitesell (1995), Credit cards and Money demand: a Crosssectional Study, Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, 27(2), 604-623.
EIM 2011, Toonbankbetalingsverkeer in 2009 (POS payments in the Netherlands), May
2011, Zoetermeer.
Gresvik, O. and H. Haare (2008), Payment habits at point of sale. Different methods
of calculating use of cards and cash in Norway, Staff Memo No 6/2008, Norges Bank.
Hayashi, F. (2006), A Puzzle of Card Payment Pricing: Why Are Merchants Still
Accepting Card Payments?, Review of Network Economics, 5(1), 144-174.
HBD 2010, Monitor Betalingsverkeer 2010, Hoofdbedrijfschap detailhandel, 2010.
Jacobsen, J.G.K. and S.T. Nielsen (2011), Payment habits in Denmark, Monetary
Review Quarter 3 Part 1, 125-136, Danmarks Nationalbank.
Jonker, N. (2007), Payment instruments as perceived by consumers – results from a
household survey, De Economist 155(3), 271-303.
46
Cash usage in the Netherlands
Jonker, N. and A. Kosse (2009), The impact of survey design on research outcomes:
A case study of seven pilots measuring cash usage in the Netherlands, DNB Working
paper, 221, de Nederlandsche Bank.
Gibson, J. and B. Kim (2007), Measurement error in recall surveys and the
relationship between household size and food demand, American Journal of
Agricultural Economics 89(2), 473-489.
Kalckreuth, U. von, T. Schmidt and H. Stix (2009), Choosing and using payment
instruments: evidence from German microdata, Discussion Paper Series 1: Economic
Studies, 36, Deutsche Bundesbank.
Klee, E. (2008), How people pay: evidence from grocery store data, Journal of
Monetary Economics, 55(3), 526-541.
McAndrews, J. and Wang, Z. (2008), The economics of two-sided payment card
markets: pricing, adoption and usage, working paper.
MOB (2011), MOB National Forum on the Payment System Report 2010.
Monnet, C. and Roberds, W. (2008), Optimal pricing of payment services, Journal
of Monetary Economics, 55, 1428-1440.
Rochet, J-C, and Tirole, J. (2002), Cooperation among Competitors: Some
Economics of Payment Card Associations, The Rand Journal of Economics, 33(4),
549-570.
Rysman, M. (2007), An empirical analysis of payment card usage, Journal of Industrial
Economics, 55, 1-36.
Schmidt, T. (2011), Fatigue in payment diaries – empirical evidence from Germany,
Discussion Paper Series 1: Economic Studies, 11/2011, Deutsche Bundesbank.
Sudman, S., and N. Bradburn (1973), Effects of time and memory factors on response
in surveys, Journal of the American Statistical Association, 68(344), 805-815.
Stavins, J. (2001), Effect of consumer characteristics on the use of payment
instruments, New England Economic Review, 3, 19-31.
Shy, O, and Tarkka (2002), The Market for Electronic Cash Cards, Journal of Money,
Credit and Banking, 34(2), 299–314.
47
The Payments Council (2011), The way we pay 2010, the UK’s payment revolution,
The Payments Council.
Tincello, D.G., K.S. Williams, M. Joshi, P.P. Assassa and K.R. Abrams (2007),
Urinary diaries, Obstetrics and Gyneacology, 109(2), 227-280.
Tobin, J. (1956), The Interest-Elasticity of Transactions Demand for Money, Review
of Economics and Statistics, 38, 241-247.
Turján, A., E. Divéki, É Keszy-Harmath, G. Kóczán and K. Takács (2011), Nothing
is for free: a survey of the social cost of the main instruments in Hungary, MNB
Occasional papers 93, 2011.
Wright, J. (2004), The determinants of optimal interchange fees in payment systems,
Journal of Industrial Economics, 2(1), 1-26.
Wright, J. (2010), Why Do Merchants Accept Payment Cards? Review of Network
Economics, 9 (3), article 1.
48
Cash usage in the Netherlands
Appendix I Composition of the sample17
Variables
Gender
Age
Education
Ethnicity
Country
of origin
Region
Income
bracket
Total
Composition and size of the sample
Number of
Proportion
respondents
in sample
Male
3,617
48%
Female
3,882
52%
12-24
1,411
19%
25-34
1,234
16%
35-44
1,408
19%
45-54
1,260
17%
55-64
1,406
19%
65-74
598
8%
75+
182
2%
No/Primary education
497
7%
Lower vocational, pre-vocational
1,559
21%
secondary and junior general
secondary
Senior secondary vocational, senior
3,213
43%
general secondary and pre-university
Higher professional
1,615
22%
University
610
8%
Unknown/Other
5
0%
Ethnic Dutch
6,012
80%
Ethnically non-Dutch
1,487
20%
Netherlands (ethnic Dutch)
6,012
80%
Morocco
62
1%
Turkey
101
1%
Surinam
169
2%
Dutch Antilles and Aruba
76
1%
Indonesia
271
4%
Other non-Western countries
236
3%
Other Western countries
564
7%
Three large cities
970
13%
Rest of west
2,329
31%
North
941
13%
East
1,481
20%
South
1,778
24%
Unknown/Less than EUR 13,400
2,495
33%
EUR 13,400 to EUR 24,600
1,173
16%
EUR 24,600 to EUR 36,400
1,454
19%
EUR 36,400 to EUR 48,200
955
13%
EUR 48,200 to EUR 61,000
743
10%
EUR 61,000 to EUR 72,800
331
4%
EUR 72,800 to EUR 97,400
219
3%
EUR 97,400 or more
129
2%
7,499
Proportion in
population 17
49%
51%
18%
14%
18%
17%
15%
9%
7%
14%
25%
37%
14%
8%
1%
81%
19%
81%
2%
2%
2%
1%
3%
3%
7%
11%
33%
10%
21%
24%
8%
17%
17%
16%
16%
10%
10%
7%
17 Source: Statistics Netherlands 2010
49