A survey of more than 6,700 people across ten major markets has quantified economic harm linked to fragmented cross-border payment infrastructure, with one in three remittance recipients reporting they have struggled to pay for food, rent, or utilities because funds were trapped in disconnected systems.
The research, published jointly by Singapore-headquartered payments network Thunes and analyst firm Juniper Research, characterises the underlying problem as a structural fragmentation deadlock: domestic payment systems in most major economies now clear in real time, but the cross-border rails connecting those domestic networks have not kept pace with that progress.
The survey was conducted in April 2026 across the United States, Brazil, Saudi Arabia, China, India, the Philippines, the UK, Germany, South Africa, and Nigeria, giving the findings a geographically broad base spanning both remittance-sending and remittance-receiving markets.
What the Study Measured
Among remittance-dependent respondents, 82 percent reported experiencing at least one material consequence tied to payment delays, fees, or uncertainty, including missed essential bills, mental health stress, or being forced to turn down work. Separately, 42 percent described stress or anxiety directly linked to unpredictable cross-border transactions. Transparency was also identified as a distinct failure point: four in ten senders reported receiving a different final amount than expected, and among respondents aged 18 to 24, 49 percent said they received no upfront cost clarity at all before sending funds.
How Payment Friction Affects Gig Economy Workers Specifically
The gig economy dimension of the findings is notably pronounced. Among gig workers receiving international payments, 11 percent reported having lost or turned down job opportunities because of payment delays, fees, or uncertainty, a rate the study found to be nearly three times the 4 percent figure recorded among non-gig workers. Structural exposure to cross-border payment risk is also higher among this group: 63 percent of gig workers send or receive money internationally, compared with 27 percent of non-gig workers, and gig workers were found to be twice as likely to experience volatile month-to-month income, meaning a delayed payment can directly constrain their capacity to accept further work.
Thunes describes this emerging disparity as a “Digital Mobility Divide,” framing reliable access to fast international payments as an increasing precondition for participation in the global labour market. Where that access is absent, the study frames the resulting effect not as inconvenience but as a measurable reduction in earning potential.
Key Factors Behind the Friction Gap
Chloé Mayenobe, deputy chief executive of Thunes, said the data exposes what she described as a cross-border “friction tax” that disproportionately burdens those least able to absorb its cost.
The findings intersect with a longstanding policy target. The G20’s commitment, set in 2011 and repeatedly renewed, is to bring the global average cost of sending remittances below 3 percent of transaction value by 2030. World Bank data has shown measurable progress toward that target, though the average remains above the threshold in many corridors, with regulatory compliance costs, correspondent banking de-risking, and fragmented domestic clearing systems all cited as contributing factors to the persistent gap.
Costs and Implications for Payments Operators
For commercial payments operators, the report frames infrastructure gaps as a direct constraint on revenue rather than solely a reputational or social concern. Platforms including Uber, Deliveroo, and Grab, all named as Thunes network members, depend on reliable cross-border worker payouts as part of their operating model, meaning payment friction in this vertical carries commercial as well as social cost.
Several interoperability frameworks are advancing that could address elements of the gap, including ISO 20022 migration in wholesale payments, the Bank for International Settlements’ Nexus multilateral platform model, and the European Union’s move toward mandatory instant credit transfers under its revised Payment Services Regulation. In emerging markets, bilateral linkages between real-time payment systems, including those being developed across ASEAN and parts of Africa, are narrowing specific payment corridors, though the research notes that a globally coherent interoperability layer does not yet exist.
Risks and Limitations
The study’s findings rely on self-reported survey data collected in April 2026 across ten markets, and the report does not specify the margin of error or full methodology underlying the headline percentages cited. While the research documents correlation between payment friction and negative economic outcomes for gig workers, it does not establish the precise causal mechanisms by which payment delays translate into lost job opportunities in every case. Additionally, progress toward the G20’s 3 percent remittance-cost target has been described by the World Bank as uneven across corridors, meaning the structural gap identified by Thunes is unlikely to close uniformly or quickly across all ten surveyed markets.
Outlook
Closing the interoperability gap identified in the research will depend on the pace of adoption for frameworks such as ISO 20022, the BIS Nexus model, and regional real-time payment linkages, none of which currently constitute a globally coherent cross-border layer. Whether commercial pressure from gig economy platforms accelerates that adoption, or whether progress remains corridor-specific, is a question the report raises without resolving.
Conclusion
The Thunes-Juniper Research study documents a measurable link between cross-border payment friction and reduced economic participation among remittance recipients and gig workers specifically, with gig workers found to face a substantially higher rate of lost job opportunities than non-gig workers. Structural interoperability gaps, alongside uneven progress toward the G20’s remittance-cost target, remain unresolved factors underlying the findings.
