The sixteenth edition of the Central Bank of Tunisia’s (BCT) “Payments in Figures” bulletin for the first quarter of 2026 contains a figure worth paying close attention to.
More than one direct debit payment in two was rejected, 51.2% by number. Yet that same rejection rate drops to just 7.0% when measured by value. This gap is not a technical curiosity. It outlines a social geography of payment default. It is the small direct debits that are failing, meaning households and small debtors. The rejection rate acts as a thermometer of household cash flow, more immediate than inflation or economic growth.
The troubling figure
Let us start with the raw fact. According to the BCT bulletin, of the 2.2 million direct debit payments submitted through teleclearing during the first quarter of 2026, 51.2% were rejected by number. More than one operation out of two failed.
A rejected direct debit is not simply an aborted formality. It means the account lacked sufficient funds on the day the payment was due. Behind every rejection lies a missed installment — a loan repayment, a bill, a subscription fee, colliding with an insufficient account balance.
The figure is all the more striking because direct debit is considered a reliable payment instrument. It is based on a mandate signed in advance, with the debtor having agreed to a fixed-date withdrawal from their account. When half of these payments fail, the issue is not consent, it is lack of funds.
The gap between number and value: the real indicator
The core of the analysis lies in one comparison. Rejections reach 51.2% by number, but only 7.0% by value. The gap is enormous. It means the payments failing are the smallest ones. Large account holders continue to pay; smaller ones stumble.
The social reading becomes obvious. Low-value direct debits are those linked to households and small debtors: subscriptions, consumer loan installments, modest recurring payments. These are the payments failing. High-value direct debits — those of large companies and financially solid clients, continue to go through.
In other words, financial distress is concentrated at the bottom of the scale. The payment system acts as a filter, revealing who no longer has enough margin in their account when payment day arrives.
This gap makes the rejection rate a valuable indicator. Inflation measures rising prices. Growth measures production. Neither tells us whether a household can cover a scheduled payment at a given moment. The rejection rate does. It captures the real day-to-day cash position of households, without statistical delay. It is a direct thermometer and it signals fever.
A signal largely overlooked
Yet this figure has attracted little attention. Initial readings of the BCT bulletin focused mainly on the quarter’s major shift: the decline of checks and the rise of bills of exchange. Direct debit rejections were mentioned only briefly, almost as an isolated anomaly.
That is precisely what makes it a neglected signal. An indicator that directly reflects household liquidity deserves more than a footnote in the broader story of payment modernization.
A signal connected to wider trends
These rejections do not exist in isolation. The BCT bulletin places them within a broader evolution of direct debit activity. The number of direct debits rose by 26.4%, while their total value increased by 7.3%. More mandates are being submitted, but their average value is falling.
Payments are becoming more frequent and smaller in size, a pattern entirely consistent with financially fragile borrowers struggling to keep up with numerous modest installments.
The rest of the bulletin confirms a rapidly digitizing economy. Card payments are increasing in volume, active e-commerce sites surged by 28.2%, and mobile payments through TunPay continue to grow, reaching 477,000 wallets. Checks, meanwhile, declined sharply, with their total value falling by 28.0%.
This broader context matters, but it should not overshadow the central signal: modernizing payment channels does not eliminate financial stress. A better-connected bank account is not necessarily a better-funded one.
What the “thermometer” says about the real economy
This rejection rate measures a very specific reality: the exact moment when a household’s scheduled expense meets an empty account balance.
When that happens in more than half of all direct debit operations, the diagnosis goes beyond anecdotal evidence. It points to an erosion of purchasing power that may not yet fully appear in traditional macroeconomic indicators, but is already visible in people’s bank accounts.
Caution remains necessary. The BCT bulletin provides rejection rates, but not detailed explanations. Some rejections may stem from technical issues, expired mandates, incorrect account details, and duplicate submissions. Without a detailed breakdown from the BCT, this remains hypothetical.
However, the scale of the figure, 51.2% and its concentration among low-value payments make a purely technical explanation unlikely on its own. Insufficient funds remains the most convincing explanation.
One certainty remains: this rejection rate is too meaningful an indicator to stay buried in a teleclearing table. It deserves to be monitored as closely as inflation itself. Because it does not measure intention, it measures ability. In addition, when the ability to pay collapses in one out of every two direct debits, the real economy is sending a message that smoother growth figures may take months to confirm.
