4.7 Article

Does mobile payment adoption really increase online shopping expenditure in China: A gender-differential analysis

期刊

ECONOMIC ANALYSIS AND POLICY
卷 77, 期 -, 页码 99-110

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.eap.2022.11.001

关键词

Mobile payment; Online shopping; Expenditure; Gender difference; IV-Tobit model; China

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Mobile payment adoption has a significant positive impact on household online shopping expenditure for females, but no impact on males. Gender-specific strategies and initiatives can help increase mobile payment adoption and boost online shopping. Policymakers should encourage integration between mobile payment and e-commerce platforms while fostering innovation and competition in the industry.
Mobile payments are ubiquitous in China and facilitate myriads of offline and online transactions daily. However, little is known about the spending effects of mobile payment adoption. Accordingly, this study is devoted to examining the effects of mobile payment adoption on household online shopping expenditure. Focusing on gender differentials, we analyze the 2017 Chinese General Social Survey data using the instrumental-variable-based Tobit model. Our results show that mobile payment adop-tion significantly increases household online shopping expenditure for females, while it does not affect online shopping expenditure for males-the spending effects of mobile payment adoption are not gender-neutral. Thus, gender-specific promotional strategies and initiatives may help increase mobile payment adoption and boost online shopping. The positive spending effect of mobile payment adoption on households' online shopping points to synergies between mobile payment and e-commerce platforms. Policymakers should consider regulations that encourage the integration of these platforms and, at the same time, foster innovation and competition in the industry. (c) 2022 Economic Society of Australia, Queensland. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据