Introducing electronic transaction levy in Ghana: A possible curse or a blessing? The public’s perception

Figures & data

Table 1. Background information

Background variable	n	%
Gender Male Female	458 324	58.57 41.43
Age Below 20 21–30 31–40 41 − –50 51 and above	16 300 347 85 34	2.05 38.36 44.37 10.87 4.35
Your highest level of education reached Never been to school Primary Junior high school (JHS) Senior high school (SHS) Tertiary	0 0 4 47 731	0 0 0.51 6.01 93.48
Marital status Married Single Divorce Cohabitation Widowed	397 365 13 0 7	50.77 46.68 1.66 0 0.90
Your current region of residence Ahafo Ashanti Bono Bono East Central Eastern Greater Accra North East Northern Oti Western Wastern North Volta	21 153 74 24 117 41 176 10 19 32 76 19 20	2.7 19.57 9.46 3.07 14.96 5.24 22.51 1.28 2.43 4.09 9.72 2.43 2.56
Monthly income Below Ghȼ1,000 Ghȼ1,001—Ghȼ2,000 Ghȼ2,001—Ghȼ3,000 Ghȼ3,001—Ghȼ4,000 Ghȼ4,001—Ghȼ5,000 More than Ghȼ5,000	220 221 190 59 21 71	28.13 28.26 24.30 7.54 2.69 9.08
Number of observations	782	100

Note: n and % represent the number of respondents and its percentile representation, respectively.

Table 2. Knowledge on the electronic transaction levy

Questions asked	Multiple-choice answers given	Correct or wrong	n	%
Have you heard of the E-levy planned to be introduced in Ghana?	Yes		771	98.59
	No		11	1.41
At what rate will the levy be charged?	1.50%	Correct	677	86.57
	12.5%	Wrong	105	13.43
	17.5%
	0.75%
When is the levy planned to take effect?	May, 2022	Correct	313	40.03
	January, 2021	Wrong	469	59.97
	December, 2021
	November, 2021
Which of these daily MoMo transactions would attract the levy?	Transferring Ghȼ120	Correct	303	38.75
	Transferring Ghȼ50	Wrong	479	61.25
	Transferring Ghȼ100
	Transferring Ghȼ70
Which of these transactions does not attract a levy?	Personal bank transfers	Correct	308	39.39
	Bank transfers	Wrong	474	60.61
	Mobile Money transaction
	All inward remittance

Note: n and % represent the number of respondents and its percentile representation, respectively.

Table 3. Perception of Ghanaians on the 1.50% levy on the electronic transactions

	SD, n (%)	D, n (%)	NC, n (%)	A, n (%)	SA, n (%)
I think levy on electronic transactions is a form of double taxation.	73 (9.34)	40 (5.12)	54 (6.91)	164 (20.97)	451 (57.67)
I do not think the levy on electronic transactions will be channelled toward the development of the nation.	87 (11.13)	53 (6.78)	102 (13.04)	196 (25.06)	344 (43.99)
As stipulated by Minister of Finance, do you think levy on electronic transactions would go towards assisting local entrepreneurs in Ghana.	143 (18.29)	96 (12.28)	126 (16.11)	196 (25.06)	216 (27.62)
I think the government will not be fair to Ghanaians when the electronic transaction levy is passed.	86 (11)	56 (7.16)	83 (10.61)	188 (24.04)	366 (46.80)
I think a levy on electronic transactions can increase poverty.	118 (15.09)	89 (11.38)	126 (16.11)	172 (21.99)	277 (35.42)
I think a levy on electronic transactions will have adverse effect on performance of businesses.	63 (8.06)	74 (9.46)	78 (9.97)	238 (30.43)	329 (42.07)
Levy on electronic transactions will hinder the economic development of Ghana.	93 (11.89)	107 (13.68)	149 (19.05)	178 (22.76)	255 (32.61)

Note: n and % represent the number of respondents and its percentile representation, respectively. Also, SD, D, NC, A and SA represents strongly disagree, disagree, not certain, agree and strongly agree, respectively.

Table 4. Intention to use electronic transactions affected by the levy

	SD, n (%)	D, n (%)	NC, n (%)	A, n (%)	SA, n (%)
Introducing a levy on electronic transfers is likely to reduce my usage of electronic transactions.	107 (13.68)	36 (4.60)	53 (6.78)	188 (24.04)	398 (50.90)
I would rather join a queue at the bank than to do a transfer that would attract a levy.	123 (15.73)	111 (14.19)	97 (12.40)	137 (17.52)	314 (40.15)
I will not transfer mobile money above Gh¢100 in a day if it will attract a levy of 1.50%.	96 (12.28)	115 (14.71)	78 (9.97)	137 (17.52)	356 (45.52)
I would rather bear the transportation cost of sending money to my loved ones than pay a levy of 1.50%.	154 (19.69)	122 (15.60)	142 (18.16)	125 (15.98)	239 (30.56)
I would rather withdraw money manually and make a direct payment than a bank transfer that would attract a 1.50% levy.	70 (8.95)	119 (15.22)	67 (8.57)	177 (22.63)	349 (44.63)
I would only use electronic transactions that come with a levy of 1.50% when I have no option.	126 (16.11)	89 (11.38)	105 (13.43)	263 (33.63)	199 (25.45)
I would discourage friends and families from using electronic transfer when the levy of 1.50% is passed.	129 (16.50)	136 (17.39)	123 (15.73)	122 (15.60)	272 (34.78)
I would rather make direct deposit at the bank than to transfer the money through my mobile money account which come with 1.50%. levy.	69 (8.82)	88 (11.25)	74 (9.46)	183 (23.40)	368 (47.06)

Note: n and % represents number of respondents and its percentile representation respectively. Also, SD, D, NC, A and SA represents strongly disagree, disagree, not certain, agree and strongly agree, respectively.

Figure 1. Graphical output of the impact of E-levy based on perception.

Table 5. Diagnostics

Construct reliability and validity
	CA	rho_a	CR (rho_c)	AVE
FI	0.739	0.744	0.835	0.559
FS	0.713	0.725	0.823	0.539
FW	0.865	0.880	0.901	0.645
IUET	0.900	0.913	0.924	0.672
PET	0.916	0.928	0.935	0.707
Discriminant validity
Fornell–Larcker Criterion
	FI	FS	FW	IUET	PET
FI	0.748
FS	0.563	0.734
FW	0.467	0.372	0.803
IUET	0.356	0.219	0.532	0.819
PET	0.29	0.233	0.517	0.799	0.841
Heterotrait–Monotrait ratio (HTMT)
	FI	FS	FW	IUET	PET
FI
FS	0.744
FW	0.573	0.479
IUET	0.437	0.282	0.562
PET	0.337	0.283	0.543	0.808

Note: FI, FW, IUET, PET and FS represent Financial Inclusion, Financial Well-being, Intention to Use Electronic Transactions affected by the Levy, Perception of Ghanaian on the 1.5% Levy on Electronic Transactions and Financial Skills, respectively. Also, CA is Cronbach’s alpha, CR is Composite Reliability (rho_c) and AVE is average variance extracted.

Table 6. Path coefficient

	β	SD	T-stats	Pv
Model 7: FI -> FW	0.313	0.037	8.429	0.000
Model 6:FS -> FI	0.537	0.028	19.496	0.000
Model 5:IUET -> FI	0.228	0.052	4.379	0.000
Model 4:IUET -> FW	0.237	0.050	4.781	0.000
Model 3:PET -> FI	−0.014	0.049	0.285	0.776
Model 2: PET -> FW	0.246	0.049	5.035	0.000
Model 1:PET -> IUET	0.806	0.014	55.613	0.000
	R-square		R-square adjusted
FI	0.391		0.388
FW	0.407		0.404
IUET	0.650		0.649

Note: FI, FW, IUET, PET and FS represent Financial Inclusion, Financial Well-being, Intention to Use Electronic Transactions affected by the Levy, Perception of Ghanaians on the 1.5% Levy on Electronic Transactions and Financial Skills, respectively. Also, β is the coefficient value, SD is the standard deviation, T-stats is the T-statistics and Pv is the probability value.

Table 7. Mediating and total effect

Total indirect effects				Specific indirect effect				Total effects
	β	T-stats	Pv		β	T stats	Pv		β	T-stats	Pv
Model 1:FS -> FW	0.168	7.438	0.000	Model 5: PET -> FI -> FW	−0.004	0.283	0.777	Model 11: FI -> FW	0.313	8.429	0.000
Model 2:IUET -> FW	0.071	3.776	0.000	Model 6:IUET-> FI -> FW	0.071	3.776	0.000	Model 12: FS -> FI	0.537	19.496	0.000
Model 3:PET -> FI	0.184	4.335	0.000	Model 7:PET-> IUET-> FW	0.058	3.742	0.000	Model 13: FS -> FW	0.168	7.438	0.000
Model 4: PET-> FW	0.244	6.164	0.000	Model 8:FS -> FI-> FW	0.184	4.335	0.000	Model 14:IUET -> FI	0.228	4.379	0.000
				Model 9:PET->IUET-> FI -> FW	0.191	4.804	0.000	Model 15:IUET -> FW	0.308	6.536	0.000
				Model 10: PET -> IUET -> FI	0.168	7.438	0.000	Model 16:PET -> FI	0.170	5.393	0.000
								Model 17:PET -> FW	0.490	16.938	0.000
								Model 18:PET -> LUET	0.806	55.613	0.000

Note: FI, FW, IUET, PET and FS represent Financial Inclusion, Financial Well-being, Intention to Use Electronic Transactions affected by the Levy, Perception of Ghanaian on the 1.5% Levy on Electronic Transactions and Financial Skills, respectively. Also, β is the coefficient value, T-stats is the T-statistics and Pv is the probability value.

Table 8. Summary of PLS-SEM findings

	Direct effect	Total effect
H1: PET -> IUET	Accepted	Accepted
H2: PET -> FI	Rejected	Accepted
H3:IUET -> FI	Accepted	Accepted
H4:PET -> FW	Accepted	Accepted
H5:IUET -> FW	Accepted	Accepted
H6: FI -> FW	Accepted	Accepted
Mediating effect
PET -> FI -> FW	No mediation
IUET-> FI -> FW	Partial mediation
PET-> IUET-> FW	Partial mediation
PET->IUET-> FI -> FW	Partial mediation
PET -> IUET -> FI	Full mediation

Table A1. Cross loading

	FI	FS	FW	IUET	PET
FI1	0.812	0.462	0.388	0.305	0.261
FI3	0.736	0.317	0.394	0.270	0.240
FI5	0.750	0.560	0.303	0.223	0.194
FS1	0.502	0.805	0.229	0.150	0.149
FS2	0.474	0.806	0.319	0.245	0.234
FS4	0.408	0.751	0.264	0.181	0.204
FW1	0.369	0.296	0.767	0.602	0.562
FW2	0.410	0.349	0.848	0.449	0.459
FW3	0.325	0.159	0.830	0.397	0.410
FW4	0.432	0.299	0.786	0.327	0.286
FW5	0.348	0.250	0.785	0.322	0.337
IUET2	0.244	0.200	0.452	0.873	0.715
IUET3	0.311	0.201	0.481	0.869	0.716
IUET4	0.311	0.183	0.456	0.845	0.641
IUET5	0.293	0.224	0.483	0.877	0.738
IUET7	0.333	0.234	0.46	0.829	0.646
PET1	0.242	0.193	0.449	0.680	0.829
PET5	0.3	0.247	0.504	0.722	0.885
PET6	0.289	0.187	0.443	0.711	0.883
PET7	0.209	0.225	0.442	0.678	0.867

Collinearity statistics

	VIF
FI1	1.357
FI3	1.274
FI5	1.218
FS1	1.342
FS2	1.398
FS4	1.33
FW1	1.748
FW2	2.242
FW3	2.268
FW4	2.428
FW5	2.412
IUET2	2.841
IUET3	2.723
IUET4	2.413
IUET5	2.774
IUET7	2.208
PET1	1.988
PET5	2.623
PET6	2.586
PET7	2.481

Note: VIF is collinearity statistics.