How Digital Accounts Are Reshaping Domestic Money Transfers
When someone sends money to a family member in the same country, that transfer is a domestic remittance. It might be a daughter in Nairobi sending money to her parents in rural Kenya, or a migrant worker in Jakarta wiring earnings to their village in Central Java. These in-country transfers happen billions of times a year, and the way they are done — cash, bank transfer, or mobile money — tells you a great deal about how far digital finance has reached.
The World Bank Global Findex captures two relevant measures: whether an adult sent any domestic remittance in the past year, and whether they sent one through a financial account (bank, credit union, or mobile money). The gap between these two numbers reveals how much of the domestic transfer economy remains cash-based — and which countries have successfully digitized it.
For context on the mobile money registration infrastructure that enables many of these digital transfers, see our ranking of mobile money registered vs. active accounts. For a broader look at the domestic transfer ecosystem, see our article on the domestic money transfer economy.
Who Uses Accounts for Domestic Transfers
Account-based domestic remittance rates vary enormously. The highest rates are found in West and East African economies where mobile money has made sending money as simple as dialing a number.
| Rank | Country | Adults using an account for domestic remittances | Year |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Senegal | 66.1% | 2024 |
| 2 | Ghana | 65.2% | 2024 |
| 3 | Uganda | 58.4% | 2024 |
| 4 | Gabon | 56.4% | 2024 |
| 5 | Kenya | 53.4% | 2024 |
| 6 | Côte d’Ivoire | 49.4% | 2024 |
| 7 | Nigeria | 47.1% | 2024 |
| 8 | Togo | 44.5% | 2024 |
| 9 | Zambia | 43.0% | 2024 |
| 10 | Cameroon | 40.0% | 2024 |
Every country in this top ten is in Sub-Saharan Africa — the region where mobile money has most deeply penetrated the domestic transfer market. In Senegal, where 66.9% of adults have a mobile money account, the account-based domestic remittance rate of 66.1% suggests that almost all domestic transfers flow through mobile money. For a closer look at how mobile money accounts are registered and used, see our mobile money accounts ranking.
At the bottom, eleven economies — including Latvia, Lithuania, and Slovakia — report 0% of adults sending domestic remittances through an account. This does not mean nobody sends money domestically in these countries; it means the Global Findex survey did not capture any respondents who reported doing so, which often reflects high-income economies where domestic transfers happen less frequently because geographical mobility is lower and financial services are already universal.
Account-Based vs. All Domestic Remittances
The Global Findex also measures total domestic remittance activity — whether sent through an account, cash, or any other channel. In many countries, this total is significantly higher than the account-based figure. The difference is the cash-based domestic transfer economy.
For example, while 53.4% of Kenyan adults use an account for domestic remittances, the total domestic remittance rate is higher — some transfers still happen in person, through family members traveling with cash, or through informal couriers. In countries with less developed mobile money infrastructure, the gap between total and account-based domestic remittances is even wider.
But in the top-ranked countries like Senegal, the gap is nearly zero — almost every domestic transfer flows through an account. This is the end state of digital financial inclusion for domestic transfers: when sending money within a country is as frictionless as sending a text message.
For comparison with how these domestic flows relate to international remittances, see our article on migration and remittance flows and our ranking of where remittances matter most.
Why Account-Based Domestic Remittances Matter
The shift from cash-based to account-based domestic transfers is important for several reasons:
Financial inclusion. Every time someone uses an account to send money, they create a digital financial footprint. That history can become the basis for credit scoring, insurance eligibility, and access to other financial products. See how the world borrows for what happens when people lack that footprint.
Lower cost. Cash transfers are expensive. They require travel, time, and often a middleman. Account-based transfers — especially mobile money — can cost a fraction of what cash delivery costs. The remittance costs analysis shows that digital channels are consistently cheaper than cash-based alternatives.
Safety. Carrying cash across a country is risky. Account-based transfers eliminate the physical risk of theft and loss, and create a record that can be referenced if something goes wrong. This is especially important for women and vulnerable groups who may be targets for theft.
Speed. Mobile money transfers are near-instantaneous. Cash transfers can take days, especially in rural areas where transport is infrequent. This speed matters for emergency transfers, school fee payments, and time-sensitive family needs.
What Drives High Account-Based Domestic Remittance Rates
The data reveals a clear pattern: countries with high account-based domestic remittance rates are almost always countries with high mobile money adoption. The correlation is not perfect — some countries with high mobile money adoption (like Tanzania, at 53.5% of adults) have lower account-based domestic remittance rates than Ghana at 78.3% — but the direction is unmistakable.
Three factors explain the highest rates:
-
Mobile money as the dominant payment rail. In Senegal, Ghana, and Kenya, mobile money is not just an alternative to cash — it is the payment system. People use it for everything, including sending money to family.
-
Agent density. For account-based transfers to replace cash, people need a convenient way to convert digital money into physical cash. The mobile money agent network makes this possible by placing withdrawal points within walking distance in most communities.
-
Network effects. The more people use a mobile money platform, the more valuable it becomes. Domestic remittances are inherently networked: if everyone in a family uses the same platform, sending money is instant and free. Cross-platform interoperability, where it exists, further accelerates adoption.
For a broader view of how different payment instruments serve different needs, see our comparison of credit cards vs. mobile money and our analysis of where salaries are paid digitally.
Sources & method
This article draws on two measures from the World Bank Global Findex: domestic remittances sent or received (any method, indicators fh1/fh2) and account-based domestic remittances (indicators fin28/fin29, the share of adults who sent or received domestic remittances through an account at a financial institution or mobile money provider). The Findex is a nationally representative survey of adults (age 15+) conducted in partnership with Gallup.
The account-based domestic remittance dataset covers 109 economies. Data years vary: most observations are from the 2024 Findex wave, but some countries have only 2021 or 2022 observations. See our methodology page for details on how we derive our datasets from the Findex microdata.
All figures in this article are observed values from their respective survey years. No projections are used.