Advanced International Journal for Research

E-ISSN: 3048-7641   •   Impact Factor: 9.11

A Widely Indexed Open Access Peer Reviewed Multidisciplinary Bi-monthly Scholarly International Journal

Call for Paper Volume 7, Issue 5 (September-October 2026) Submit your research before last 3 days of October to publish your research paper in the issue of September-October.

Separating Compatibility, Supervisory Trust, Market Access and Infrastructure in African Cross-Border Payment Services

Author(s) Mr. YOGO DUBOIS
Country United States
Abstract Digital payment services can cross networks whose reach is not naturally bounded by national borders, while authorization and supervision remain predominantly territorial. This article asks when an authorization issued in one African jurisdiction could safely support activity in another and whether portability can be organized as continuous supervisory trust rather than static licence recognition. It reports a mixed-method study comprising a 54-state regulatory census, a 48-state evidence-qualified quantitative Core sample, 2,862 directional home-to-host corridors, and seven structured comparative mechanism cases. Eritrea, Guinea, Libya, Sudan, South Africa, and Zimbabwe remain in the census but are excluded from Core quantitative inference at the 28 August 2026 evidence freeze. The model separates Regulatory Compatibility Distance (RCD), Supervisory Trust Capacity (STC), Host Market-Access Friction (HMAF), and Infrastructure Interoperability (II), and prohibits missing evidence from becoming a zero. Within the declared scope, 2,256 directional RCD observations (78.8% of the full universe) represent 1,128 unique unordered pairs; they are symmetric duplicates for corridor assembly and are not independent statistical observations. The RCD range is narrow (0.0000-0.0667), the median is zero, and differentiation is concentrated in two licensing variables. Evidence-qualified infrastructure exists for 498 corridors; 86 intra-UMOA/CEMAC corridors pass a narrowly provision-mapped common-supervisor STC gate; and 1,534 corridors across 30 hosts have eligible HMAF observations. Among the 398 corridors with both RCD and II, 158 add HMAF but lack eligible STC, 86 add STC but have HMAF deliberately suppressed, and 154 have neither additional component. No corridor has all four evidence-qualified components, so the Passportability Readiness Index(PRI) is withheld rather than imputed or reported as zero. The cases show that common rules, shared supervision, payment rails, and home-status reliance solve different problems and do not independently create territorial market-access rights. The article's central contribution is an evidence-gated four-component architecture showing that compatibility, supervisory reliance, territorial access, and infrastructure are non-substitutable and can mature asynchronously. It translates that result into a layered Regulatory Passport System, lifecycle-based Regulatory Passport Protocol, and Model Regulatory Framework Agreement. The findings support bounded testing; they do not establish a continent-wide passport, a country ranking, or causal effects on cost or inclusion.
Keywords regulatory passporting; payment service providers; mutual recognition; home-host supervision; regulatory distance; cross-border payments; Africa; verifiable credentials
Field Sociology > Banking / Finance
Published In Volume 7, Issue 5, September-October 2026
Published On 2026-10-05

Share this