|Generate QR code
Open Access
Subscription Access
Household debt: An institutionalist perspective and empirical assessment
https://doi.org/10.32609/0042-8736-2022-10-138-156
Abstract
The paper deals with the empirical evidence on household borrowing behavior from an institutionalist perspective. Assuming close interconnections between the availability of credit and consumerist culture, we estimate the effects of precedence of consumption, status consumption, and “investment”-minded buying driven by debt pattern. We rely on official statistics on household debt, disposable income and spending since the early 2000s to 2020. The institution of precedence of consumption is measured through data on loans drawn by households, outstanding loans, loan payments, household consumption and disposable income. Corresponding metrics illustrate that debt-financed consumption has become a widespread scheme. Financialization rate is measured separately for retail sector and housing market. Households are becoming more dependent on loan payments, as we estimated for different income groups using the paymentto-income ratios. In case with car loans, these metrics serve as indirect evidence for the embeddedness of conspicuous motive. Evidence on housing loans suggests that “investment”-minded buying can hardly result in a short-term gain. Research findings show that the pattern of precedence of consumption feeds the socially induced motives of conspicuous waste and speculation. Causality can go the other way too. The novelty of our approach is that we integrate the discourse of financialization into the institutionalist perspective and combine the theoretical constructs of precedence of consumption, conspicuous waste and speculative motive, seen as the factors of debt dependence. We contribute to applied studies by introducing factual data on household debt and providing evidence of interplay between these factors. The research is relevant socially and economically in view of the connection between unsustainable household debt and consumerist culture.
About the Authors
A. V. Vernikov
https://inecon.org/sotrudniki/vizitki-sotrudnikov/vernikov-andrej-vladimirovich.html
Institute of Economics, Russian Academy of Sciences
Russian Federation
Institute of Economics, Russian Academy of Sciences
Russian Federation
Andrei V. Vernikov
Moscow
A. A. Kurysheva
https://sfedu.ru/www/stat_pages22.show?p=UNI/s1/D¶ms=(p_per_id=%3E1006692)
Southern Federal University
Russian Federation
Southern Federal University
Russian Federation
Anna A. Kurysheva
Rostov-on-Don
References
1. Bank of Russia (2019). Analysis of consumer lending trends in 2015—2019 based on credit history bureau data. Moscow: Financial Stability Department of the Bank of Russia.
2. Bank of Russia (2021). Analysis of Russian households’ debt burden in 2020 Q2–Q3 based on credit bureau data. Moscow: Financial Stability Department of the Bank of Russia.
3. Vernikov A. V., Kurysheva A. A. (2021). Precedence and conspicuousness in car consumption. Journal of Economic Sociology, Vol. 22, No. 5, pp. 11—39. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.17323/1726-3247-2021-5-11-39
4. Graeber D. (2014). Debt: First 5000 years. Moscow: Ad Marginem Press. (In Russian).
5. Efimov V. (2011). Towards discursive economics: Methodology and history of economics revised. Journal of Economic Sociology, Vol. 12, No. 3, pp. 15—53. (In Russian).
6. Zelizer V. (2004). Social meaning of money. Moscow: HSE Publishing House. (In Russian).
7. Kanaev A. V. (2007). The origin of credit: From gift exchange to debt bondage. Finance and Credit, Vol. 13, No. 16, pp. 87—95. (In Russian).
8. Kuzina O. Е., Krupenskiy N. A. (2018). Over-indebtedness of Russians: Myth or reality? Voprosy Ekonomiki, No. 11, pp. 85—104. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.32609/0042-8736-2018-11-85-104
9. Kurysheva A. A. (2022). Institutional economics: Adopting pragmatist approach. Theoretical Economics, No. 1, pp. 89—101. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.52342/2587-7666VTE_2022_1_89_101
10. Nivorozhkina L. I. (2014). Impact of consumer credit on the level of household inequality and poverty. University News. North-Caucasian Region. Social Sciences Series, No. 4, pp. 76—83. (In Russian).
11. Radaev V. V. (2002). The lessons of “financial pyramids”, or What economic sociology can tell us about the financial behavior of masses. Universe of Russia, Vol. 11, No. 2, pp. 39—69. (In Russian).
12. Radaev V. V. (2005). Sociology of consumption: Basic approaches. Sociological Studies, No. 1, pp. 5—18. (In Russian).
13. Strebkov D. O. (2007). Motivation of private investors to stock market. Journal of Economic Sociology, Vol. 8, No. 5, pp. 17—39. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.17323/1726-3247-2007-5-17-39
14. Schumpeter J. (1982). The theory of economic development. Moscow: Progress. (In Russian).
15. Yudin G. (2015). The moral nature of debt and the making of responsible debtor. Voprosy Ekonomiki, No. 3, pp. 28—45. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.32609/0042-8736-2015-3-28-45
16. Alsemgeest L. (2015). Arguments for and against financial literacy education: Where to go from here? International Journal of Consumer Studies, Vol. 39, No. 2, pp. 155—161. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijcs.12163
17. Arthur C. (2012). Financial literacy education: Neoliberalism, the consumer and the citizen. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
18. Assa J. (2018). Finance, social value, and the rhetoric of GDP. Finance and Society, Vol. 4, No. 2, pp. 144—158. https://doi.org/10.2218/finsoc.v4i2.2869
19. Baudrillard J. (1996). The system of objects. London, New York: Verso.
20. Baudrillard J. (1998). The consumer society: Myths and structures. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
21. Berger P., Luckman T. (1991). The social construction of reality. London: Penguin Books.
22. Bezemer D. (2014). Schumpeter might be right again: The functional differentiation of credit. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Vol. 24, No. 5, pp. 935—950. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00191-014-0376-2
23. Bourdieu P. (1989). Social space and symbolic power. Sociological Theory, Vol. 7, No. 1, pp. 14—25. https://doi.org/10.2307/202060
24. Commons J. (1936). Institutional economics. American Economic Review, Vol. 26, No. 1, pp. 237—249.
25. Commons J. (1990). Institutional economics. Its place in political economy. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.
26. Hayek F. (1939). Profits, interest and investment and other essays on theory of industrial fluctuations. London: George Routledge and Sons.
27. Hein E. (2012). Finance-dominated capitalism, re-distribution, household debt and financial fragility in a Kaleckian distribution and growth model. PSL Quarterly Review, Vol. 65, No. 260, pp. 11—51.
28. Hembruff J., Soederberg S. (2019). Debtfarism and the violence of financial inclusion: The case of the payday lending industry. Forum for Social Economics, Vol. 48, No. 1, pp. 49—68. https://doi.org/10.1080/07360932.2015.1056205
29. Hodgson G. (2003). The hidden persuaders: Institutions and individuals in economic theory. Cambridge Journal of Economics, Vol. 27, No. 2, pp. 159—175. https://doi.org/10.1093/cje/27.2.159
30. Hodgson G. (2019). Prospects for institutional research. RAUSP Management Journal, Vol. 54, No. 1, pp. 112—120. https://doi.org/10.1108/RAUSP-11-2018-0112
31. Kapeller J., Schütz B. (2015). Conspicuous consumption, inequality and debt. The nature of consumption-driven profit-led regimes. Metroeconomica, Vol. 66, No. 1, pp. 51—70. https://doi.org/10.1111/meca.12061
32. Lea S., Webley P., Levine R. (1993). The economic psychology of consumer debt. Journal of Economic Psychology, Vol. 14, No. 1, pp. 85—119. https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-4870(93)90041-I
33. Mitchell W. (1924). The prospects of economics. In: R. Tugwell (ed.). The trend of economics. New York: A.A. Knopf, pp. 5—25.
34. Rajan R. (2010). Fault lines: How hidden fractures still threaten the world economy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
35. Scott R., Pressman S. (2019). Financially unstable households. Journal of Economic Issues, Vol. 53, No. 2, pp. 523—531. https://doi.org/10.1080/00213624.2019.1603765
36. Skidelsky R. (2020). What’s wrong with economics? A primer for the perplexed. New Haven, London: Yale U. Press.
37. Starr M. (2010). Debt-financed consumption sprees: Regulation, freedom and habits of thought. Journal of Economic Issues, Vol. 44, No. 2, pp. 459—469. https://doi.org/10.2753/JEI0021-3624440218
38. Strathern M. (1992). Qualified value: The perspective of gift exchange. In: C. Humphrey, S. Hugh-Jones (eds.). Barter, exchange and value: An anthropological approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 169—191.
39. Veblen T. (1922). The theory of the leisure class: An economic study of institutions. New York: B.W. Huebsch.
40. Whalen C. (ed.) (2022). Institutional economics. Perspectives and methods in pursuit of a better world. London and New York: Routledge.
41. Wrenn M. (2022). Myth busting. Institutional economics and mythopoetics. In: C. Whalen (ed.). Institutional economics. Perspectives and methods in pursuit of a better world. London and New York: Routledge, pp. 225—246. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003160434-12
42. Yudin G., Pavlyutkin I. (2015). Recording the ambiguity: The moral economy of debt books in a Russian small town. Cultural Studies, Vol. 29, No. 5—6, pp. 807—826. https://doi.org/10.1080/09502386.2015.1017145
Supplementary files
Review
For citations:
Vernikov A.V., Kurysheva A.A. Household debt: An institutionalist perspective and empirical assessment. Voprosy Ekonomiki. 2022;(10):138-156. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.32609/0042-8736-2022-10-138-156
Views:
814
Email this article 
