No abstract

Concern about the increasing use of payday lending led the UK's Financial Conduct Authority to introduce landmark reforms in 2014/15. While these reforms have generally been welcomed as a way of curbing ‘extortionate’ and ‘predatory’ lending, this paper presents a more nuanced picture based on a theoretically-informed analysis of the growth and nature of payday lending combined with original and rigorous qualitative interviews with customers. We argue that payday lending has grown as a result of three major and inter-related trends: growing income insecurity for people both in and out of work; cuts in state welfare provision; and increasing financialisation. Recent reforms of payday lending do nothing to tackle these root causes. Our research also makes a major contribution to debates about the ‘everyday life’ of financialisation by focusing on the ‘lived experience’ of borrowers. We show that, contrary to the rather simplistic picture presented by the media and many campaigners, various aspects of payday lending are actually welcomed by customers, given the situations they are in. Tighter regulation may therefore have negative consequences for some. More generally, we argue that the regul(aris)ation of payday lending reinforces the shift in the role of the state from provider/redistributor to regulator/enabler.

The 'financialization of everyday life' is a concept widely recognized by academics as an increasingly fundamental way of understanding the impact of neoliberal ideologies and financial processes on individual identities, subjectivities and relationships with financial services. This article contributes to debates on the consumption of sub-prime credit and calls for a sophisticated analysis of this aspect of financialization to take into account the variegated use of financial services and use of credit by people on low and moderate incomes. Drawing on qualitative analysis of the 'lived experience' of financialization, based on rigorous in-depth interviews with 44 low/middle income borrowers in the United Kingdom the article concludes that: individuals are at risk of financial insecurity due to increasing variegation of credit markets, and; that the binaries of 'super inclusion'/'relic' financial ecologies fail to reflect the complexity and variegation of credit use in contemporary society as a result of financialization.

There is much debate about the impact of personal finance education on financial knowledge, attitudes and behaviour, particularly based on studies in the United Kingdom (UK) and United States of America (US). This paper makes a contribution to this debate, drawing on analysis of a survey of 521 undergraduate students at Bogor Agricultural University (IPB) in Indonesia in 2015. As part of that study, we measured the impact of a 14-week personal finance education course on financial knowledge, attitudes and behaviour. Our findings show that, when controlling for other factors, the personal finance course did, indeed, have a positive and statistically significant impact on financial knowledge. However, there was no statistically significant impact of the course on financial attitudes or behaviour. Our analysis also shows that family financial socialisation was an important driver of financial knowledge, attitudes and behaviour while other drivers of financial behaviour included income, work experience, year/field of study and discussing money with friends. We do not argue here that formal financial education is unimportant but that its role in changing attitudes and behaviour should be considered carefully if this is, indeed, its aim.

No abstract