In Sweden, we have several historical examples of successful coordination on the payment market. In 1925, the public-owned Postgirot was formed to answer the need for more efficient mediation of payments via cashless payments by giro transfer. As this was a social need, a publicly owned solution was created to facilitate the required coordination. In the 1950s, the banks then formed their own version in the form of Bankgirot, in which standardised paper forms facilitated the management of payments between banks. In more modern times, the Swedish banks have also collaborated over withdrawals from ATMs and purchases with debit cards, to give two examples. They have also established a joint system for Bank ID and, a few years ago, the mobile application Swish 18, to which the largest Swedish banks are connected. The Swedish banks have been able to take continual advantage of the benefits of coordination to which economies of scale give rise. Again, this is something that we perhaps do not give too much thought to, but in many other countries these activities do not work anything like as smoothly. There, for example, it can be difficult or expensive to withdraw money from another bank’s ATM. In Sweden, the Riksbank provides, like the central banks of other countries, a central payment system so that the banks can exchange money with each other. Allow me to explain in a little more detail what this means, before going on to discuss the challenges we must consider for the future.
The most recent estimate we have for Sweden puts the total cost of executing payments at just below 1 per cent of GDP per year. 17  Account-based payments require a network of intermediaries and technical systems Unlike when we use cash, using the money we have in our accounts as a means of payment requires a relatively advanced technical infrastructure. This is because the purchaser's money or credit needs to be verified, payment instructions need to be sent and so on. A transfer must also be arranged between the banks of the purchaser and the seller. At present, this usually takes time, often a day and sometimes more. This means that risks arise for the parties involved in the transaction. As consumers, however, we do not normally notice that payments take time and that risks arise. 16 See, for example, Rochet, J.-C. and J. Tirole. (2003) “Platform Competition in Two-Sided Markets” Journal of the European Economic Association 1(4). 17 The total cost includes both the private and the social cost. See Segendorf, B. L. and Jansson, T. (2012) ”The cost of consumer payments in Sweden”. Sveriges Riksbank Working Paper Series No. 262. Similar costs have been calculated for other EU countries (see Schmiedel, H, Kostova, G. and Ruttenberg, W. 2012. ”The social and private costs of retail payment instruments”. Occasional Paper Series 137. ECB. 6 [15]  As I mentioned previously, positive network externalities are something that characterises the payment market. This means that there are efficiency gains to be made by using coordination.