Specific situations may call for a more interventionist measure by the authority, either offering services directly to consumers (for example by setting up digital public infrastructures) or partnering with the private sector to do so. Economies of scale, interoperability issues or even financial inclusion goals are possible reasons for such a scenario, where initial investment is too high and there are coordination difficulties among private agents. This measure carries larger risks to the authority, whose mitigation requires some degree of acceptance by the market, budgetary space and a clear view of which outcome the intervention expects to generate.
Country Examples
The Central Bank of Brazil envisioned Pix, the Brazilian instant payment system, in 2013, as a consequence of a 2010 report by the Brazilian competition authority judging illegal credit card acquisition monopolies. The active role of the Central Bank of Brazil in mandating the participation of large Payment Service Providers (PSPs) ranks among the key success factors of Pix: consumers had an easier time adopting Pix due to the extensive gamut of payment providers.1
1. Banco Central do Brasil (2023), Pix Management Report 2020 - 2022, https://www.bcb.gov.br/content/estabilidadefinanceira/pix/relatorio_de_gestao_pix/pix_management_report_2023.pdf (accessed on 26 August 2025).
The Reserve Bank of India established the National Payments Corporation of India (NPCI) as a tax-exempt, not-for-profit corporation. NPCI implemented Unified Payments Interface (UPI), which competes with tax-paying companies such as Visa and Mastercard. Being exempt from taxes was critical for NPCI’s success and UPI’s broad uptake.1
1. Cook, W. and A. Raman (2019), “National Payments Corporation of India and the Remaking of Payments in India”, CGAP, https://www.cgap.org/sites/default/files/publications/2019_05_07_NPCI_Working_Paper.pdf (accessed on 27 August 2025).
