Abstract
Buy now, pay later (BNPL) products have rapidly emerged as a significant force in consumer finance, fundamentally altering how individuals access short-term credit. This dissertation synthesises contemporary empirical evidence to examine whether BNPL services genuinely enhance financial inclusion or primarily accelerate problem debt among vulnerable populations. Through systematic literature review, this study evaluates peer-reviewed research, large-scale consumer data analyses, and qualitative investigations from multiple jurisdictions. The findings reveal a nuanced picture: BNPL demonstrably lowers entry barriers to credit, enabling consumers with thin or subprime credit files to participate in e-commerce and manage cash flow more effectively. However, substantial evidence indicates that these same products systematically increase impulsive spending, overdraft charges, and credit card fees, particularly among young and lower-income users. The evidence suggests that BNPL functions as a double-edged financial inclusion tool, offering short-term benefits whilst embedding users in prolonged debt relations. This dissertation concludes that BNPL’s potential for genuine financial inclusion remains contingent upon robust regulatory frameworks, enhanced transparency requirements, and targeted financial literacy interventions.
Introduction
The proliferation of buy now, pay later services represents one of the most significant transformations in consumer credit markets since the introduction of credit cards. These fintech products allow consumers to defer payment for goods and services, typically splitting purchases into interest-free instalments over several weeks or months. The BNPL sector has experienced exponential growth, with providers such as Klarna, Afterpay, and Clearpay becoming household names across developed economies. In the United Kingdom alone, BNPL usage increased substantially during the COVID-19 pandemic, with the Financial Conduct Authority estimating that the market nearly trebled in size between 2020 and 2021 (Financial Conduct Authority, 2021).
This rapid expansion has ignited considerable academic and policy debate regarding the fundamental nature of these products. Proponents argue that BNPL democratises access to credit, enabling consumers traditionally excluded from mainstream financial services to participate fully in contemporary commerce. Critics counter that these services exploit behavioural vulnerabilities, encouraging overconsumption and trapping users in cycles of debt. The regulatory landscape remains fragmented, with BNPL products historically operating outside consumer credit regulations in many jurisdictions, though this situation is evolving (Woolard, 2021).
The academic significance of this question extends beyond consumer finance into broader considerations of financial citizenship, digital inequality, and economic welfare. Financial inclusion has become a central policy objective globally, with the World Bank identifying access to financial services as essential for reducing poverty and promoting economic development (World Bank, 2022). BNPL’s potential contribution to or undermining of these objectives therefore carries substantial practical implications.
Moreover, the concentration of BNPL usage among young people and women raises important equity considerations. If these products disproportionately expose vulnerable populations to debt-related harm, then apparent increases in financial inclusion may mask more insidious forms of financial exclusion through indebtedness. Understanding this dynamic is essential for evidence-based policymaking and responsible financial innovation.
Aim and objectives
Primary aim
This dissertation aims to critically evaluate whether buy now, pay later products genuinely enhance financial inclusion or primarily accelerate problem debt, synthesising contemporary empirical evidence to inform academic understanding and policy development.
Objectives
To achieve this aim, the following objectives guide this investigation:
1. To examine the mechanisms through which BNPL services lower barriers to credit access and their implications for traditionally underserved consumer populations.
2. To evaluate empirical evidence regarding BNPL’s effects on consumer spending behaviour, with particular attention to impulsive purchasing patterns.
3. To assess the relationship between BNPL usage and indicators of financial distress, including overdraft charges, delinquencies, and subjective financial strain.
4. To identify which demographic groups experience the most pronounced benefits and risks from BNPL adoption.
5. To synthesise findings to determine whether BNPL’s net effect represents genuine financial inclusion or accelerated problem debt.
6. To consider the regulatory and educational interventions that might optimise BNPL’s benefits whilst minimising harm.
Methodology
This dissertation employs a systematic literature synthesis methodology to address the research objectives. Given the emerging nature of BNPL as a research topic and the diversity of methodological approaches in existing studies, a comprehensive review of empirical literature provides the most appropriate foundation for addressing the multifaceted research questions.
Search strategy and source selection
The literature search encompassed peer-reviewed academic journals, working papers from established research institutions, and policy documents from regulatory authorities. Primary databases included Consensus, an artificial intelligence-powered academic search engine, alongside traditional repositories such as JSTOR, Google Scholar, and SSRN. Search terms included combinations of “buy now pay later,” “BNPL,” “financial inclusion,” “consumer debt,” “problem debt,” “fintech credit,” and related variants.
Source quality was assessed using established criteria including peer review status, methodological rigour, sample size and representativeness, and publication venue quality. Studies employing causal identification strategies, such as randomised controlled trials or quasi-experimental designs, received particular attention given their superior ability to establish causal relationships. However, survey-based and qualitative research was also included to capture dimensions of consumer experience that quantitative approaches may overlook.
Analytical approach
The synthesis followed a thematic analysis framework, organising findings according to the study objectives. Evidence was evaluated for consistency across studies, methodological quality, and generalisability. Where studies presented conflicting findings, attention was paid to potential sources of heterogeneity, including sample composition, geographic context, and temporal factors.
The analysis explicitly distinguishes between evidence that is well-established through multiple robust studies and findings that remain preliminary or contested. This distinction is essential for drawing appropriately calibrated conclusions and identifying priorities for future research.
Limitations
This methodology carries inherent limitations. As a literature synthesis, it cannot generate novel empirical findings but rather depends upon the quality and scope of existing research. The BNPL sector evolves rapidly, and some studies may reflect market conditions that have since changed. Additionally, publication bias may affect the available evidence base, with null or negative findings potentially underrepresented. These limitations are considered in interpreting findings and drawing conclusions.
Literature review
The evolution of buy now, pay later services
Buy now, pay later services emerged from the intersection of e-commerce growth and fintech innovation, offering consumers an alternative to traditional credit products. Unlike credit cards or personal loans, BNPL typically involves no or soft credit checks, simple digital onboarding processes, and interest-free instalment plans for qualifying transactions. This business model shifts revenue generation from consumer interest payments to merchant fees, fundamentally altering the credit relationship (Gerrans, Baur and Lavagna-Slater, 2021).
The regulatory classification of BNPL has proven contentious. In many jurisdictions, these products initially fell outside consumer credit regulations because individual repayment periods often fell below statutory thresholds, and no interest was charged. This regulatory gap allowed BNPL providers to operate with fewer consumer protections than traditional lenders, a situation that has attracted increasing scrutiny (Woolard, 2021). The United Kingdom has moved toward bringing BNPL within the Financial Conduct Authority’s regulatory perimeter, though implementation remains ongoing.
Financial inclusion mechanisms
BNPL lowers entry barriers to short-term credit through several distinct mechanisms. The elimination or softening of credit checks removes a significant obstacle for consumers with thin or subprime credit files, including young adults with limited credit history and individuals recovering from previous financial difficulties. Simple digital onboarding processes reduce friction compared to traditional credit applications, enabling real-time purchasing decisions (Gaju, 2025).
These characteristics support e-commerce participation for consumers who might otherwise lack suitable payment options. For individuals without credit cards or with credit limits too low to accommodate desired purchases, BNPL provides an alternative pathway to consumption. Ahmad et al. (2025) identify ease of access and flexible payment structures as primary drivers of BNPL adoption in consumer goods purchases.
Causal evidence from a large United States retailer provides important insights into BNPL’s effects on credit access and management. Papich (2022) finds that BNPL access raises total credit available, with open credit balances increasing by 4.3 per cent and consumers acquiring more credit cards. Crucially, this study also documents that past-due amounts decreased by 2.4 per cent and delinquencies fell by 0.2 per cent, suggesting that average consumers may improve debt management when granted BNPL access.
The healthcare sector illustrates BNPL’s potential for extending inclusion beyond retail consumption. Medical bills represent a significant source of financial distress, particularly in health systems without universal coverage. BNPL products designed for healthcare allow patients to spread costs over time, potentially enabling earlier treatment and reducing the burden of unexpected medical expenses (R and S, 2025).
Spending behaviour effects
A substantial body of evidence examines BNPL’s influence on consumer spending behaviour, revealing consistent patterns that carry significant implications for debt accumulation. Field evidence from a German e-retailer employed randomised BNPL offers to establish causal effects on purchasing decisions. Keil and Burg (2023) demonstrate that BNPL availability strongly increases purchases by impulsive customers, a segment that exhibits higher default risk. This finding suggests that BNPL’s credit allocation may concentrate among consumers least able to manage additional debt responsibly.
Survey research across multiple countries corroborates these experimental findings. Studies from the Philippines, India, and Malaysia consistently find high levels of unplanned spending among BNPL users, with respondents reporting difficulty managing repayments and perceiving significant risk of debt accumulation (Podin et al., 2025; Majeed and Samorin, 2025; Biradar and Reddy, 2025; Vega et al., 2025). Young and low-income users emerge as particularly vulnerable populations across these studies.
Threadgold et al. (2024) contribute important qualitative insights through their examination of BNPL’s role in young people’s financial lives. Their research characterises BNPL technologies as incorporating gamification elements that obscure the debt relationship and normalise instalment-based consumption. Users describe BNPL as feeling fundamentally different from traditional debt, potentially reducing psychological barriers to borrowing and spending.
The psychological dimensions of BNPL usage warrant particular attention. Relja, Ward and Zhao (2023) examine psychological determinants of BNPL adoption in the United Kingdom, identifying factors that influence whether consumers engage responsibly or problematically with these services. Aisjah (2024) demonstrates that financial self-efficacy and parental financial socialisation influence students’ intentions to use BNPL, suggesting that educational interventions may affect outcomes.
Indicators of financial distress
Large-scale empirical research provides compelling evidence regarding BNPL’s association with financial distress indicators. Dehaan et al. (2024) analyse bank account data from 10.6 million United States consumers, representing one of the most substantial empirical contributions to this literature. Their findings reveal that new BNPL users quickly incur more overdraft charges and credit card interest and fees compared to otherwise similar non-users. The title of their study—”Buy Now Pay (Pain?) Later”—captures their interpretation that BNPL facilitates overborrowing with consequent financial pain.
This pattern of increased financial friction following BNPL adoption contradicts simpler narratives of either pure benefit or pure harm. Rather, it suggests that while some consumers may benefit from improved cash flow management, a substantial proportion experience deteriorating financial circumstances. The authors interpret their findings as consistent with BNPL enabling overconsumption that consumers subsequently struggle to finance through their regular income.
Survey-based research reinforces these quantitative findings through reported subjective experiences. Podin et al. (2025) document perceived financial instability among BNPL users in Malaysia, while Majeed and Samorin (2025) identify significant financial stress among users in the Philippines. These studies consistently identify young, low-income users as experiencing the most pronounced difficulties, suggesting that vulnerability to BNPL-related harm intersects with existing financial precarity.
Powell et al. (2023) examine the relationship between responsible financial behaviours and financial wellbeing specifically among BNPL users. Their analysis suggests that BNPL usage may undermine responsible financial practices, with implications for broader financial wellness beyond immediate debt indicators.
Demographic patterns and equity considerations
The demographic distribution of BNPL usage carries important implications for evaluating inclusion claims. Evidence consistently indicates concentrated usage among young people, with Generation Z and Millennials representing the primary user base (Podin et al., 2025; Biradar and Reddy, 2025). This pattern reflects both marketing strategies targeting younger consumers and structural factors including limited access to traditional credit among those with short credit histories.
Loomis and Cockayne (2024) develop a feminist approach to analysing BNPL, highlighting the gendered dimensions of fintech credit. Women represent a disproportionate share of BNPL users, a pattern that feminist scholars interpret through frameworks emphasising consumption pressures and income inequality. Their analysis suggests that BNPL may normalise indebted consumption in ways that embed users—particularly women—in prolonged “everyday” debt relations that sustain rather than resolve financial precarity.
This critical perspective challenges straightforward interpretations of expanded credit access as beneficial. If BNPL primarily enables consumption that users would otherwise forgo due to budget constraints, then the welfare implications depend crucially on whether that consumption produces genuine value or merely brings forward spending that causes subsequent hardship. The concentration among already-vulnerable populations raises particular concerns.
Regulatory landscape and policy responses
Regulatory attention to BNPL has intensified as the sector’s scale and potential harms have become apparent. In the United Kingdom, the Woolard Review commissioned by the Financial Conduct Authority recommended bringing BNPL within the regulatory perimeter for consumer credit, subjecting providers to conduct rules and affordability requirements (Woolard, 2021). Implementation has proceeded gradually, with consultation on specific rules ongoing.
The Australian experience provides useful comparative perspective. Gerrans, Baur and Lavagna-Slater (2021) examine BNPL arrangements through the lens of responsible lending, arguing that existing regulatory frameworks inadequately address the specific characteristics of these products. Their analysis emphasises the tension between BNPL’s innovation potential and consumer protection imperatives.
Gaju (2025) examines drivers and challenges in increasing BNPL adoption, identifying regulatory uncertainty as a significant factor affecting market development. Providers face tension between maintaining the frictionless user experience that drives adoption and implementing more rigorous affordability assessments that regulation may require. The resolution of this tension will substantially influence BNPL’s ultimate contribution to financial inclusion.
Gaps in current knowledge
Despite substantial research attention, important gaps remain in understanding BNPL’s effects. Long-term consequences for credit scores remain weakly evidenced, as most studies examine relatively short time horizons. Whether BNPL usage helps users build credit histories that facilitate access to mainstream products—or instead initiates debt spirals that damage long-term creditworthiness—remains unclear (Gaju, 2025).
The potential for default cascades and macro-level over-indebtedness similarly requires further investigation. Existing quasi-experimental work shows average improvements on some metrics, but BNPL loans are typically small and study horizons short (Papich, 2022). Whether aggregate BNPL expansion could contribute to systemic financial stability concerns remains speculative.
Additionally, research has concentrated in certain geographic contexts, with substantial evidence from the United States, Australia, and Southeast Asia, but less systematic coverage of other markets. The extent to which findings generalise across different regulatory and cultural contexts requires explicit examination.
Discussion
Evaluating the financial inclusion thesis
The evidence reviewed supports a qualified version of the financial inclusion thesis. BNPL demonstrably expands credit access to consumers who face barriers to traditional products, including young adults building credit histories and individuals with subprime credit profiles. The elimination of hard credit checks and simplified onboarding processes reduce friction that might otherwise prevent legitimate credit needs from being met. For consumers capable of managing instalments responsibly, BNPL provides a valuable financial tool.
Papich’s (2022) findings of improved debt management outcomes among average users suggest that inclusion benefits can be real and substantial. The increase in available credit accompanied by decreased past-due amounts and delinquencies indicates that some consumers successfully integrate BNPL into their financial management strategies. This evidence challenges simplistic narratives that frame BNPL as inherently predatory.
However, the aggregate picture obscures important heterogeneity. Average improvements may coexist with substantial harm among vulnerable subpopulations, and the evidence consistently identifies such patterns. The concentration of negative outcomes among young and lower-income users—precisely the populations that inclusion narratives celebrate reaching—complicates evaluation of BNPL’s net contribution.
The overborrowing mechanism
The evidence strongly supports the existence of a systematic overborrowing mechanism through which BNPL facilitates excessive consumption relative to users’ financial capacity. Keil and Burg’s (2023) experimental findings establish that BNPL availability causally increases purchases by impulsive consumers, and that this segment carries elevated default risk. This finding directly connects BNPL’s frictionless design to problematic outcomes.
Dehaan et al.’s (2024) large-scale analysis of financial distress indicators provides compelling observational corroboration. The rapid emergence of increased overdraft charges and credit card fees among new BNPL users suggests that, for a substantial proportion of adopters, BNPL enables consumption that their income cannot support. The pain in “Pay Later” becomes tangible in these financial friction indicators.
The psychological mechanisms underlying overborrowing deserve careful consideration. BNPL’s presentation as distinct from debt—emphasised through branding, user interface design, and interest-free terms—may reduce the psychological barriers that normally constrain borrowing. Threadgold et al.’s (2024) analysis of gamification elements suggests that BNPL platforms actively work to dissociate the spending moment from the debt consequence, potentially exploiting present bias and other documented cognitive limitations.
Vulnerability and inequality
The intersection of BNPL usage with existing vulnerabilities emerges as a central concern. Young people face particular risks: they are targeted by marketing, have limited experience with debt management, may face peer pressure for consumption, and frequently have constrained incomes. The evidence from multiple countries consistently identifies youth as both heavy BNPL users and disproportionate sufferers of associated harms.
Women’s overrepresentation among BNPL users raises distinct equity concerns. Loomis and Cockayne’s (2024) feminist analysis situates BNPL within broader gendered patterns of consumption, labour, and financial responsibility. If BNPL’s apparent convenience primarily enables women to manage household consumption under income constraints, then the resulting debt may entrench rather than challenge gender-based financial inequality.
Low-income populations face perhaps the most acute risks. BNPL may appear especially attractive to those with constrained budgets, offering apparent access to consumption otherwise out of reach. Yet these same consumers have the least margin to absorb financial shocks or repayment difficulties. The evidence of financial distress concentrating among lower-income users suggests that BNPL may exacerbate rather than ameliorate economic inequality.
Regulatory implications
The mixed evidence base supports regulatory approaches that preserve BNPL’s inclusion benefits whilst addressing its documented harms. Outright prohibition would deny genuine benefits to consumers who use BNPL responsibly, whilst an unregulated status quo permits continuing harm to vulnerable users.
Affordability assessments emerge as a key regulatory tool, requiring providers to evaluate whether consumers can manage proposed repayments without undue hardship. Such requirements need careful calibration: overly stringent assessments would simply recreate the access barriers that exclude thin-file consumers from traditional credit, whilst inadequate requirements would fail to prevent overborrowing.
Enhanced transparency requirements could address some psychological mechanisms underlying impulsive use. Clear presentation of BNPL as a form of debt, prominent display of total repayment obligations, and standardised comparison information might help consumers make more informed decisions. However, the effectiveness of disclosure-based interventions remains uncertain given documented limitations of information provision in financial decision-making.
The role of financial literacy
Financial literacy emerges as an important moderating factor in BNPL outcomes. Aisjah’s (2024) evidence that financial self-efficacy influences BNPL usage intentions suggests that educational interventions may affect behaviour. If consumers with greater financial literacy make more responsible BNPL decisions, then literacy programmes could form part of a comprehensive policy response.
However, placing responsibility on consumer education risks individualising what are substantially structural problems. BNPL platforms are designed to encourage spending, and expecting individual financial literacy to override sophisticated choice architecture may be unrealistic. Financial literacy interventions likely complement rather than substitute for regulatory protections.
Limitations of current evidence
The conclusions drawn here must be tempered by acknowledgement of evidence limitations. Much research relies on survey self-reports, which may be affected by recall bias, social desirability effects, and subjective interpretation. Large-scale observational studies, while valuable, face challenges in establishing causality given selection effects in BNPL adoption.
The rapid evolution of the BNPL sector means that studies conducted even recently may not reflect current market conditions. Provider practices, regulatory requirements, and consumer sophistication all continue to change, potentially affecting the applicability of existing findings.
Geographic concentration of research in particular markets limits confident generalisation. Cultural attitudes toward debt, regulatory frameworks, and market structures vary substantially across countries, and findings from one context may not transfer directly to others.
Conclusions
This dissertation has examined whether buy now, pay later products enhance financial inclusion or accelerate problem debt, synthesising contemporary empirical evidence to inform this contested question. The analysis reveals that BNPL operates as a financial inclusion tool with built-in overborrowing risks—neither purely beneficial nor straightforwardly harmful, but rather producing heterogeneous outcomes across different consumer populations.
Regarding the first objective, BNPL clearly lowers barriers to credit access through simplified onboarding and reduced credit requirements, enabling consumers with thin or subprime credit files to access short-term financing. The second objective’s examination of spending behaviour revealed consistent evidence that BNPL systematically increases impulsive purchasing, particularly among consumers predisposed to such behaviour. The third objective’s assessment of financial distress indicators found strong evidence that new BNPL users experience increased overdraft charges and credit card fees, though average outcomes may show improvement.
The fourth objective’s demographic analysis identified young people, women, and lower-income consumers as experiencing concentrated risks alongside concentrated usage. The fifth objective’s synthesis suggests that BNPL’s net effect cannot be characterised uniformly: genuine inclusion benefits coexist with genuine acceleration of problem debt, with the balance varying by consumer circumstances and provider practices.
Addressing the sixth objective, the evidence supports regulatory frameworks that require affordability assessments, mandate transparency, and operate alongside financial literacy interventions. Such approaches may preserve inclusion benefits whilst reducing harm to vulnerable populations.
Future research should prioritise longitudinal studies examining long-term credit score effects, investigation of potential macro-level over-indebtedness risks, and evaluation of regulatory interventions as they are implemented. The BNPL sector continues to evolve rapidly, and ongoing research attention remains essential for evidence-based policy development.
The broader significance of these findings extends beyond BNPL specifically to questions about fintech innovation and financial inclusion generally. The BNPL case illustrates that expanded access to financial services is not equivalent to improved financial welfare—the terms on which access occurs, and the behavioural responses that products elicit, fundamentally affect whether inclusion produces genuine benefit or merely novel forms of financial vulnerability.
References
Ahmad, S., Zakaria, A., Zainal, N. and Seman, M. (2025) ‘Unveiling determinants of consumer adoption intentions for buy now, pay later (BNPL) services in goods purchases’, *Advanced International Journal of Business, Entrepreneurship and SMEs*. https://doi.org/10.35631/aijbes.723011
Aisjah, S. (2024) ‘Intention to use buy-now-pay-later payment system among university students: a combination of financial parenting, financial self-efficacy, and social media intensity’, *Cogent Social Sciences*, 10. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2024.2306705
Biradar, A. and Reddy, P. (2025) ‘Study on impact of buy now, pay later (BNPL) services on young generation’s spending habits’, *EPRA International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research (IJMR)*. https://doi.org/10.36713/epra22386
Dehaan, E., Kim, J., Lourie, B. and Zhu, C. (2024) ‘Buy now pay (pain?) later’, *Management Science*, 70, pp. 5586-5598. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2022.03266
Financial Conduct Authority (2021) *The Woolard Review: a review of change and innovation in the unsecured credit market*. London: Financial Conduct Authority.
Gaju, A. (2025) ‘Buy now, pay later: drivers and challenges in increasing adoption’, *Proceedings of the World Conference on Management, Business and Economics*. https://doi.org/10.33422/worldmbe.v1i1.995
Gerrans, P., Baur, D. and Lavagna-Slater, S. (2021) ‘Fintech and responsibility: buy-now-pay-later arrangements’, *Australian Journal of Management*, 47, pp. 474-502. https://doi.org/10.1177/03128962211032448
Keil, J. and Burg, V. (2023) ‘Buy now, pay later and impulse shopping’, *SSRN Electronic Journal*. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4448780
Loomis, J. and Cockayne, D. (2024) ‘A feminist approach to fintech: exploring “buy now, pay later” technologies and consumer fintech’, *Journal of Cultural Economy*, 18, pp. 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1080/17530350.2024.2323692
Majeed, K. and Samorin, M. (2025) ‘Spending patterns and financial risks among “buy now, pay later” (BNPL) consumers’, *Psychology and Education: A Multidisciplinary Journal*. https://doi.org/10.70838/pemj.390605
Papich, S. (2022) ‘Effects of buy now, pay later on financial well-being’, *SSRN Electronic Journal*. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4247360
Podin, N., Yusoff, N., Jie, N., Halim, S., Amran, N. and Fakhruddin, F. (2025) ‘Exploring the impacts of buy now, pay later (BNPL) payment method among millennials and Generation Z in Malaysia’, *International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science*. https://doi.org/10.47772/ijriss.2025.906000487
Powell, R., Arif, A., Gengatharen, D., Yong, J. and Gengatharen, R. (2023) ‘The relationship between responsible financial behaviours and financial wellbeing: the case of buy-now-pay-later’, *Accounting & Finance*. https://doi.org/10.1111/acfi.13100
R, R. and S, K. (2025) ‘Assessing the impact of “buy now pay later” services on patient access to healthcare’, *International Journal For Multidisciplinary Research*. https://doi.org/10.36948/ijfmr.2025.v07i02.36115
Relja, R., Ward, P. and Zhao, A. (2023) ‘Understanding the psychological determinants of buy-now-pay-later (BNPL) in the UK: a user perspective’, *International Journal of Bank Marketing*. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijbm-07-2022-0324
Threadgold, S., Shannon, B., Haro, A., Cook, J., Davies, K., Coffey, J., Farrugia, D., Matthews, B., Healy, J. and Burrows, R. (2024) ‘Buy now, pay later technologies and the gamification of debt in the financial lives of young people’, *Journal of Cultural Economy*, 18, pp. 52-67. https://doi.org/10.1080/17530350.2024.2346210
Vega, N., Constante, K., Pacson, K., Samaniego, J. and Tobias, T. (2025) ‘The influence of buy now, pay later (BNPL) services on consumer spending behavior’, *International Journal of Sustainability and Advanced Integrated Research*. https://doi.org/10.65339/ijsair.v1.i1.5
Woolard, C. (2021) *The Woolard Review: a review of change and innovation in the unsecured credit market*. London: Financial Conduct Authority.
World Bank (2022) *Financial inclusion overview*. Washington, DC: World Bank Group.
