Democracy of Credit: Ownership and the Politics of Credit Access in Late Twentieth-Century America

Krippner, Greta R.

doi:10.1086/692274

Cited by 115 publications

(65 citation statements)

References 46 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In the Netherlands, for instance, residential address (post-code) is a key variable(Aalbers 2005) while in the US concerns about redlining made zipcodes illegal to use. Gender is also widely used but not in the US(Krippner 2017). Lazarus (2012) presents an analysis of the French credit scoring system through comparisons with the American one.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Consumer Credit in Comparative Perspective

Róna‐Tas

Guseva

2018

Annu. Rev. Sociol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We review the literature in sociology and related fields on the fast global growth of consumer credit and debt and the possible explanations for this expansion. We describe the ways people interact with the strongly segmented consumer credit system around the world—more specifically, the way they access credit and the way they are held accountable for their debt. We then report on research on two areas in which consumer credit is consequential: its effects on social relations and on physical and mental health. Throughout the article, we point out national variations and discuss explanations for these differences. We conclude with a brief discussion of the future tasks and challenges of comparative research on consumer credit.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Consumer Credit in Comparative Perspective

Róna‐Tas

Guseva

2018

Annu. Rev. Sociol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Since then, credit-scoring systems have also grown more complex. As the categories used have become less familiar, skeptics have faced increasing difficulty in organizing to challenge the systems (Simon 1988, Krippner 2013). …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dequantifying diversity: affirmative action and admissions at the University of Michigan

Hirschman¹,

Berrey²,

Greenland³

2016

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To explore the limits of quantification as a form of rationalization, we examine a rare case of dequantification: race-based affirmative action in undergraduate admissions at the University of Michigan. Michigan adopted a policy of holistically reviewing undergraduate applications in 2003, after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional its points-based admissions policy. Using archival and ethnographic data, we trace the adoption, evolution, and undoing of Michigan's quantified system of admissions decision-making between 1964 and 2004. In a context in which opponents of the system had legal avenues to engage a powerful outside authority, we argue that three internal features of the University's quantified admissions policy contributed to its demise: its transparency, the instability of the categories it quantified, and the existence of qualitative alternatives. Our analysis challenges the presumed durability and inevitability of quantification by identifying its vulnerabilities and suggests that quantification should be understood as a matter of degree rather than a simple binary.

show abstract

“…In short, research on landowners' responses to legal changes suggests a relationship between the legal environment, landlords' perceptions of risk, and business strategies. Together with studies of the political culture of property, these findings suggest that both the ideas and legal powers of private ownership may serve as a powerful rudder, directing owners' decisionmaking as well as their perceptions of risk and government legitimacy (Becher 2014;Krippner 2017). As Constance Perin (1977, x) has argued, understandings of homeowners' conceptions of housing and ownership are "prerequisite[s] to remedies for reducing discrimination."…”

Section: The Limits Of Antidiscrimination Lawmentioning

confidence: 99%

Risk, Property Rights, and Antidiscrimination Law in Rental Housing: Toward a Property-in-Action Framework

Brydolf-Horwitz¹

2020

Law Soc. Inq.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Landlords’ decisions significantly shape the housing outcomes of poor and stigmatized renters. Despite this important gatekeeping role, studies of antidiscrimination law have not thoroughly examined how private market actors respond to reform efforts or how private property rights potentially enable them to evade regulation. This study draws on ethnographic data gathered between late 2015 and early 2018 to examine how and why Seattle landlords opposed an ordinance regulating the use of criminal records in rental housing. The findings indicate that landlords’ opposition stems from their expectation that property protects owners’ ability to control their exposure to risk. Yet conceptions of property and risk perception alone cannot explain how landlords can evade regulation. Toward this end, I show how private property rights facilitate adaptation by which landlords can legally circumvent the intent of the law. The study highlights the value of a sociolegal framework of property in action, which incorporates cultural notions of ownership, legal rights, and the regulatory and market environments that shape owners’ discretion. I suggest that greater attention to risk discourse and property rights will deepen our understanding of the limits of antidiscrimination law and the ability of private market actors to adapt to, and resist, legal reform efforts.

show abstract

Democracy of Credit: Ownership and the Politics of Credit Access in Late Twentieth-Century America

Cited by 115 publications

References 46 publications

Consumer Credit in Comparative Perspective

Consumer Credit in Comparative Perspective

Dequantifying diversity: affirmative action and admissions at the University of Michigan

Risk, Property Rights, and Antidiscrimination Law in Rental Housing: Toward a Property-in-Action Framework

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About