Review of Business and Economics Studies / Вестник исследований бизнеса и экономики, 2017, том 5, № 2
Покупка
Основная коллекция
Тематика:
Экономика. Бухгалтерский учет. Финансы
Год издания: 2017
Кол-во страниц: 74
Дополнительно
Тематика:
ББК:
УДК:
ОКСО:
ГРНТИ:
Скопировать запись
Фрагмент текстового слоя документа размещен для индексирующих роботов.
Для полноценной работы с документом, пожалуйста, перейдите в
ридер.
Review of Business and Economics Studies EDITOR-IN-CHIEF Prof. Alexander Ilyinsky Dean, International Finance Faculty, Financial University, Moscow, Russia ailyinsky@fa.ru EXECUTIVE EDITOR Dr. Zbigniew Mierzwa EDITORIAL BOARD Dr. Mark Aleksanyan Adam Smith Business School, The Business School, University of Glasgow, UK Prof. Edoardo Croci Research Director, IEFE Centre for Research on Energy and Environmental Economics and Policy, Università Bocconi, Italy Prof. Moorad Choudhry Dept.of Mathematical Sciences, Brunel University, UK Prof. David Dickinson Department of Economics, Birmingham Business School, University of Birmingham, UK Prof. Chien-Te Fan Institute of Law for Science and Technology, National Tsing Hua University, Taiwan Prof. Wing M. Fok Director, Asia Business Studies, College of Business, Loyola University New Orleans, USA Prof. Konstantin P. Gluschenko Faculty of Economics, Novosibirsk State University, Russia Prof. George E. Halkos Associate Editor in Environment and Development Economics, Cambridge University Press; Director of Operations Research Laboratory, University of Thessaly, Greece Dr. Christopher A. Hartwell President, CASE — Center for Social and Economic Research, Warsaw, Poland Prof. S. Jaimungal Associate Chair of Graduate Studies, Dept. Statistical Sciences & Mathematical Finance Program, University of Toronto, Canada Prof. Bartlomiej Kaminski University of Maryland, USA; Rzeszow University of Information Technology and Management, Poland Prof. Vladimir Kvint Chair of Financial Strategy, Moscow School of Economics, Moscow State University, Russia Prof. Alexander Melnikov Department of Mathematical and Statistical Sciences, University of Alberta, Canada Prof. George Kleiner Deputy Director, Central Economics and Mathematics Institute, Russian Academy of Sciences, Russia Prof. Kwok Kwong Director, Asian Pacific Business Institute, California State University, Los Angeles, USA Prof. Dimitrios Mavrakis Director, Energy Policy and Development Centre, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Greece Prof. Steve McGuire Director, Entrepreneurship Institute, California State University, Los Angeles, USA Prof. Rustem Nureev Сhairman for Research of the Department of Economic Theory, Financial University, Russia Dr. Oleg V. Pavlov Associate Professor of Economics and System Dynamics, Department of Social Science and Policy Studies, Worcester Polytechnic Institute, USA Prof. Boris Porfiriev Deputy Director, Institute of Economic Forecasting, Russian Academy of Sciences, Russia Prof. Svetlozar T. Rachev Professor of Finance, College of Business, Stony Brook University, USA Prof. Boris Rubtsov Deputy chairman of Department of financial markets and banks for R&D, Financial University, Russia Dr. Minghao Shen Dean, Center for Cantonese Merchants Research, Guangdong University of Foreign Studies, China Prof. Dmitry Sorokin Chairman for Research, Financial University, Russia Prof. Robert L. Tang Vice Chancellor for Academic, De La Salle College of Saint Benilde, Manila, The Philippines Dr. Dimitrios Tsomocos Saïd Business School, Fellow in Management, University of Oxford; Senior Research Associate, Financial Markets Group, London School of Economics, UK Prof. Sun Xiaoqin Dean, Graduate School of Business, Guangdong University of Foreign Studies, China REVIEW OF BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS STUDIES (ROBES) is the quarterly peerreviewed scholarly journal published by the Financial University under the Government of Russian Federation, Moscow. Journal’s mission is to provide scientific perspective on wide range of topical economic and business subjects. CONTACT INFORMATION Financial University Leningradsky prospekt, 53, office 5.6 123995 Moscow Russian Federation Telephone: +7 (499) 943-98-02 Website: www.robes.fa.ru AUTHOR INQUIRIES Inquiries relating to the submission of articles can be sent by electronic mail to robes@fa.ru. COPYRIGHT AND PHOTOCOPYING © 2017 Review of Business and Economics Studies. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored or transmitted in any form or by any means without the prior permission in writing from the copyright holder. Single photocopies of articles may be made for personal use as allowed by national copyright laws. ISSN 2308-944X
Вестник исследований бизнеса и экономики ГЛАВНЫЙ РЕДАКТОР А.И. Ильинский, профессор, декан Международного финансо вого факультета Финансового университета ВЫПУСКАЮЩИЙ РЕДАКТОР Збигнев Межва, д-р экон. наук РЕДАКЦИОННЫЙ СОВЕТ М.М. Алексанян, профессор Бизнесшколы им. Адама Смита, Университет Глазго (Великобритания) К. Вонг, профессор, директор Института азиатско-тихоокеанского бизнеса Университета штата Калифорния, Лос-Анджелес (США) К.П. Глущенко, профессор экономического факультета Новосибирского госуниверситета С. Джеимангал, профессор Департамента статистики и математических финансов Университета Торонто (Канада) Д. Дикинсон, профессор Департамента экономики Бирмингемской бизнесшколы, Бирмингемский университет (Великобритания) Б. Каминский, профессор, Мэрилендский университет (США); Университет информационных технологий и менеджмента в Жешуве (Польша) В.Л. Квинт, заведующий кафедрой финансовой стратегии Московской школы экономики МГУ, профессор Школы бизнеса Лассальского университета (США) Г. Б. Клейнер, профессор, член-корреспондент РАН, заместитель директора Центрального экономико-математического института РАН Э. Крочи, профессор, директор по научной работе Центра исследований в области энергетики и экономики окружающей среды Университета Боккони (Италия) Д. Мавракис, профессор, директор Центра политики и развития энергетики Национального университета Афин (Греция) С. Макгвайр, профессор, директор Института предпринимательства Университета штата Калифорния, Лос-Анджелес (США) А. Мельников, профессор Депар та мента математических и ста тистических исследований Университета провинции Альберта (Канада) Р.М. Нуреев, профессор, научный руководитель Департамента экономической теории Финансового университета О.В. Павлов, профессор Депар та мента по литологии и полити ческих исследований Ворчестерского политехнического института (США) Б.Н. Порфирьев, профессор, член-корреспондент РАН, заместитель директора Института народнохозяйственного прогнозирования РАН С. Рачев, профессор Бизнес-кол леджа Университета Стони Брук (США) Б.Б. Рубцов, профессор, заместитель руководителя Департамента финансовых рынков и банков по НИР Финансового университета Д.Е. Сорокин, профессор, членкорреспондент РАН, научный руководитель Финансового университета Р. Тан, профессор, проректор Колледжа Де Ла Саль Св. Бенильды (Филиппины) Д. Тсомокос, Оксфордский университет, старший научный сотрудник Лондонской школы экономики (Великобритания) Ч.Т. Фан, профессор, Институт права в области науки и технологии, национальный университет Цин Хуа (Тайвань) В. Фок, профессор, директор по исследованиям азиатского бизнеса Бизнес-колледжа Университета Лойола (США) Д.Е. Халкос, профессор, Университет Фессалии (Греция) К.А. Хартвелл, президент Центра социальных и экономических исследований CASE (Польша) М. Чудри, профессор, Университет Брунеля (Великобритания) Сун Цяокин, профессор, декан Высшей школы бизнеса Гуандунского университета зарубежных исследований (КНР) М. Шен, декан Центра кантонских рыночных исследований Гуандунского университета (КНР) Редакция научных журналов Финансового университета 123995, Москва, ГСП-5, Ленинградский пр-т, 53, комн. 5.6 Тел. 8 (499) 943-98-02. Интернет: www.robes.fa.ru. Журнал “Review of Business and Economics Studies” («Вест ник исследований бизнеса и экономики») зарегистрирован в Федеральной службе по надзору в сфере связи, информационных технологий и массовых коммуникаций 15 сентября 2016 г. Свидетельство о регистрации ПИ № ФС77-67072. Подписано в печать: 07.06.2017. Формат 60 × 84 1/8. Заказ № 660 от 07.06.2017. Отпечатано в ООП Издательства Финуниверситета (Ленинградский проспект, д. 49). 16+
CONTENTS Socio-Psychological Peculiarities and Level of Financial Literacy of Russian Debtors Maria A. Gagarina, Anna A. Shantseva . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5 Gold, Dollar, International Trade and Monetary Integration in Us Foreign Policy: from the Interwar Years Through the Height of Bretton Woods Simone Selva . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23 Price Theory of Monies, from Global History Dennis O. Flynn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .36 No More Blood for Oil. How Could EU Help? Tseng Li Ming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .47 “Brexit”: What to Expect? Elizaveta A. Kharina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .58 Understanding How Value Added Tax (Vat) is Applied in the Democratic Republic of Congo Tshibola Aimee Murphie Lubeshi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .62 The Monetary System of the Luso-Brazilian Empire: the Changing Role of the ‘Provincial’ Currency in the 17th and 18th Centuries Fernando Cerqueira Lima, Rita Martins de Sousa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .68 Review of Business and Economics Studies Volume 5, Number 2, 2017
Вестник исследований бизнеса и экономики № 2, 2017 CОДЕРЖАНИЕ Социально-психологические особенности и уровень финансовой грамотности должников Гагарина М. А., Шанцева А. А. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Золото, доллар, международная торговля и валютная интеграция во внешней политике США: от послевоенных лет через Бреттон-Вудское соглашение Симон Сельва . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Теория цены денег. Из всеобщей истории Денис О. Флинн . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Нет нефти ценой крови. Как Евросоюз может помочь? Тсенг Ли Минг . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 Брексит: что следует ожидать? Харина Елизавета Алексеевна . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 Вопросы применения НДС в Демократической Республике Конго Тчибола Эйми Мyрфи Лyбеши . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 Монетарная система Португальско-Бразильской империи: меняющаяся роль «провинциальной» денежной системы в XVII и XVIII веках Фернандо Серкуеира Лима, Рита Мартинс де Соуса . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
Review of Business and Economics Studies Volume 5, Number 2, 2017 Socio-Psychological Peculiarities and Level of Financial Literacy of Russian Debtors Maria A. Gagarina PhD, Associate professor Department of Human Resource Management Financial University Moscow, Russia MGagarina@fa.ru; MGagarina224@gmail.com Anna A. Shantseva student International Finance Faculty Financial University Moscow, Russia Anna.Shantseva@gmail.com Abstract. This article is devoted to investigation of role of financial literacy and socio-psychological factors in borrowing and debt behavior. Topicality of the problem is caused by necessity to understand the causes, except economic, leading to delays in debt repayment and therefore increasing debt burden. This work presents the basic theoretical approaches to the problem of debtors, debt behavior concepts and connections between debt behavior, financial literacy, social and demographic characteristics and personality traits in accordance with the results of international research. Results of empirical investigation are presented, which reflect differences in financial literacy and sociopsychological characteristics of non-borrowers, borrowers and debtors. In conclusion, debtors do not differ from borrowers, who pay their bills in due course, by social and demographic characteristics, but there is a significant difference in their psychological characteristics. Debtors demonstrate higher tolerance to debts and irrationality in debt behavior and lower level of conscientiousness than nonborrowers and borrowers/payers. Non-borrowers do not differ significantly from borrowers/payers in psychological characteristics but differ significantly from them in socio-demographic characteristics and financial literacy. Results got by the authors are in agreement with the data obtained in Russian and foreign scientific researches. Keywords: debtor; borrower; borrowing; debt behavior; debt repayment; financial literacy; debt literacy; socio-psychological characteristics; big five personality traits; locus of control; debt attitudes. Социально-психологические особенности и уровень финансовой грамотности должников Гагарина М. А. кандидат психологических наук, доцент Кафедра «Управление персоналом и психология» Финансовый университет Москва, Россия MGagarina@fa.ru; MGagarina224@gmail.com
Review of Business and Economics Studies Volume 5, Number 2, 2017 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We would like to thank the Russian Foundation for Humanities for supporting this research through grant 15–06–10710 INTRODUCTION Relevance of the study The urgency of studying the role of financial literacy and socio-psychological characteristics in debt behavior is underpinned by the growing indebtedness of the population and the need to determine the factors that influence its dynamics. The problem of borrowing and debt is not fully investigated on Russian sample because of two reasons: late emergency of credit card market and the wide-spread habit of borrowing from individuals (relatives and friends) which is difficult to study objectively. These socio-economic and cultural peculiarities of borrowing in our country do not let us simply use foreign scientific experience in debt behavior. In general, the analysis of debt behavior should take into account a va riety of factors, such as the financial ability to meet one’s debt obligations, readiness and desire to perform, understanding of the mechanisms of debt formation, as well as individual characteristics such as integrity, conscientiousness, responsibility. Another important aspect is a person’s ability to see the cause-and-effect relationships between their actions and what is happening in their life. Knowing what factors play a leading role in the transition from borrowing to “bad debt” behavior will help to develop a more effective system of measures to prevent the growth of debt among the population in the future. Decisions on borrowing call for knowledge of certain financial products and familiarity with the fundamentals of financial calculations. There is good reason to believe that the higher the level of financial literacy, the more rational decisions, including the ones on borrowing, the respondents will take. Together with the ability to limit oneself and direct available funds to repay debt, these characteristics can be the basis of effective debt management. That is, we assume the following: Шанцева А. А. студентка Международного финансового факультета Финансовый университет Москва, Россия Anna.Shantseva@gmail.com Аннотация. Данная статья посвящена исследованию роли уровня финансовой грамотности и социальнопсихологических факторов в заимствующем и долговом поведении. Актуальность темы исследования обусловлена необходимостью понимания причин, помимо сугубо экономических, побуждающих лиц к несвоевременному погашению задолженности и приводящих к росту долгового бремени. В работе проанализированы основные теоретические подходы к определению должников и долгового поведения, показана связь долгового поведения с психологическими характеристиками респондентов и их уровнем финансовой грамотности по результатам зарубежных исследований. На основании результатов эмпирического исследования представлены различия по социально-психологическим характеристикам и уровню финансовой грамотности у лиц, не имеющих займов, заемщиков, не имеющих задолженности, и должников. Сделан вывод, что должники не отличаются от заемщиков, своевременно осуществляющих платежи по социальным и демографическим характеристикам, но отличаются от них по психологическим характеристикам. Должники, по сравнению с плательщиками и незаемщиками, имеют более нерациональное долговое поведение и более низкие показатели избегания долгов, а также более низкий уровень сознательности. Лица, не имеющие опыта заимствования, не отличаются от заемщиковплательщиков по психологическим характеристикам, но отличаются по социально-демографическим характеристикам и по финансовой грамотности. Полученные авторами результаты согласуются с данными других отечественных и зарубежных научных исследований. Ключевые слова: должник; заемщик; заимствующее поведение; долговое поведение; финансовая грамотность; долговая грамотность; социально-психологические особенности; большая пятерка личностных черт; локус контроля; долговые преставления.
Review of Business and Economics Studies Volume 5, Number 2, 2017 in order not to become bad debtor, it is necessary to (1) gain a deep understanding of what a loan is and how it is to be paid; (2) be able to relate the resources available to those that would be required to repay the debt and (3) have certain psychological characteristics, such as emotional stability, conscientiousness, responsibility and internality for action to repay the loan. It is worth emphasizing that the problem calls for a systematic, multi-factor approach. Our previous studies (Gagarina, 2015; Smurygina, Gagarina 2016) have shown that the knowledge of the basic concept like «credit» and «loan interest» does not guarantee in itself the ability to apply this knowledge in practice and make the right decisions, like the ones on the order of loan repayment in case of multiple debts [1; 24 33]. However, it goes without saying that the absence of such knowledge adversely affects the decision. Background We start our review from the terms which are mentioned in the heading of the article and make an overview of the developments that already exist in the field of debt behavior. Financial literacy is defined as “a combination of awareness, knowledge, skill, attitude and behavior necessary to make sound financial decisions and ultimately achieve individual financial wellbeing” (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)/International Network on Financial Education (INFE), 2012). In its projects aimed at improving national strategies for financial education, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) recommends to consider the study of financial literacy as a multistep process that depends on financial, economic and social circumstances of people/households. The initial stage involves the acquaintance with such basic concepts as the characteristics and use of financial products, and then proceeds to more complex steps like the comprehension of financial concepts and development of skills and attitudes necessary for managing personal finances in the short and long term. As a result, all stages of development of financial literacy suggest positive changes in the behavioral patterns of citizens and households. Research by Lusardi & Tufano (2009) suggests that households with low level of financial literacy tend to borrow money at a higher interest rate. They are also less likely to plan out their retirement savings, have a lower propensity to save, and they prone to experience difficulties with payment of mortgage loans [30]. It is not so easy to define “debt” and “debtors”. According to Dronova (2015), in Russian language the word “debt” has at least two different meanings: debt as something borrowed and obligated to be returned back (usually in terms goods or money), as synonym to “indebtedness” and “a loan” it can be met in manuscripts in XII–XIII century; and debt as a moral obligation (like sacred duty, filial duty or duty to the motherland), which can be seen in ancient text in XVI century [4]. Because a single word “debt” is used for both loans and dues, then while speaking about “debt behavior” we have to clarify that we actually mean borrowing. Borrowing behavior can be viewed in different ways. Firstly, it can be divided into institutional and non-institutional borrowing — that is, borrowing from an organization or from an individual. This classification is often used in sociological research, for example, in the PhD thesis A. A. Dikiy (2012) and A. I. Faizullina (2007) [3; 6]. Meanwhile, proponents of this approach refer to this type of borrowing behavior as “debt behavior”. Necessity to distinguish between “debt” and “credit” in also of great concern. That is borrowing can be divided in accordance with the degree of repayment: those authors differentiate between loans (credit), outstanding debt (which is often treated as doubtful debt) and bad (distressed) debts. In the first case, we are talking about loans that can be repaid on time and in full; in the second case, there is a late payment on a loan or a payment is made not in full; and in the third case we are dealing with debt that remains unpaid because of the large size of the debt or because the debtor does not intend to pay it. These categories are applied in the works of Lea, S.E.G., P. Webley & R. M. Levine (1993), and Lea, S. E. G., Webley, P. & Walker, C.M. (1995) [27; 28]. Consequently, we can consider “credit behavior” (associated with borrowing in general and credit paid in time and in full) and “debt behavior” (associated with debt outstanding past due date and bad debt). In these studies, as well as in some other ones, debt is seen as a forced inability to make a payment that needs to be made, while credit is a deferred payment that will be made in accordance with the contract between the borrower and lender. In accordance with this approach to debt,
Review of Business and Economics Studies Volume 5, Number 2, 2017 we distinguish among the borrowers those who are “non-debtors”, “minor debtors” and “serious debtors” (Lea, S. E. G., Webley, P. & Walker, C.M. (1995)) [28]. Thus, we face the question: who should be kept in mind by the term “debtor”? Firstly, it was proved by Dearden, C., Goode J., Whitfield, G. & Cox, L. (2010) that economists and ordinary people understand this in different ways [15, p. 11]. Objective measures are those derived from legal and statistical measures and often use quantitative indicators, while subjective definitions are more qualitative and self-declared by nature. Secondly, one can be a debtor, but not a borrower — how are we to deal with this case? After analyzing the characteristics of the respondents described in various English-language articles, the title of which included the words “debt”, “debt behavior” and “indebtedness”, we found out that Achtziger, A., Hubert, M., Kenning, P., Raab, G. & Reisch, L. (2015); Dunn, L. F. & Mirzaie, I. A. (2011); Harrison, N., Agnew, S. & Serido, J. (2015); Jenkins, R., Bhugra, D., Bebbington, P., Brugha, T., Farrell, M., Coid, J. Fryers, T., Weich, S., Singleton, N. & Meltzer, H. (2008) apply the term “debtor” to people who just have mortgages, credit cards, auto loans and education loans [7; 18; 22; 25]; Brown, Taylor, Price (2005) use these works interchangeably [12] and Gathergood, J. (2012); Gathergood, J. & Weber J. (2014); Lusardi, A., and Tufano, P. (2009) apply debt to those who have late payments and arrears on loans [20; 19; 30]. To talk about bad debts, in addition to the term “problem debt” that reflects the inability and/or unwillingness to repay the loan or pay for goods and services on time and in full used in Jones, L.E., Loibl, C. & Tennyson, S. (2015)) [26], another term (not used in Russian language) “over-indebtedness”, which implies overdue loans and a subjective definition of borrowing as conjugate with financial problems applied in works of Dunn, L. F. & Mirzaie, I. A. (2011) and Harrison, N., Agnew, S. & Serido, J. (2015) [18, 22]. All in all, in our survey, we distinguished between borrowers/payers (those having loan of any type or borrowing from individuals) and debtors (borrowers with overdue loans and missed payments) and non-borrows. Debt behavior and borrowing behavior can be analyzed with a focus on their causes. That type of works is devoted to the search of predictors of debt behavior, which include, for instance, self-control and time perspective, like in the study by Webley & Nyhus (2001) [34]. However, it is not always possible to distinguish a sound cause-and-effect relationship between individual characteristics and debt accumulation. For example, Gathergood’s works (2012) state that a low level of self-control leads to higher debt, as respondents with weak selfcontrol often use short-term but expensive loans, and the increase in debt is due to low self-control, not financial literacy [20]. Meanwhile, Achtziger, A., Hubert, M., Kenning, P., Raab, G. & Reisch, L. argue in their research (2015) that the link between low self-control and a high level of debt is mediated, and it is related to the inability (or reduced ability) to monitor and control the need to make purchases [7]. Due to the inability to detect cause-and-effect relationships, many works are basically devoted to identification of various characteristics (personal, behavioral, and so on) of debtors and their differences from borrowers and from people who don’t borrow at all. Relatively well developed is the problem of the connection between attitudes and debt behaviors. In their work, Davies, E., Lea, S. E. G. (1995) discovered the relationship between pro- and anti-debt attitudes in students with the amounts of debt outstanding and their readiness to spend money on maintaining certain living standards. Pro-debt attitudes turned out to be positively correlated with the larger amounts of arrears [14]. Besides, there are studies that confirm the link between personality traits and financial decision-making such as unsecure debt and financial assets. Brown, S. & Taylor (2014) have shown that extraversion and agreeableness have a significant positive correlation with the amount of debt, while conscientiousness has a negative correlation with it. The only personality trait that does not give any meaningful correlation neither with the size of the debt, nor with the ownership of assets, is neuroticism [11]. These conclusions contradict the results obtained by other researchers; according to Webley & Nyhus (2001), for example, emotional instability is a positive predictor of debt [34]. Many studies focus on the (generally negative) influence of debts on physical and mental health of debtors. A number of epidemiological studies, like the ones by Gathergood (2012) or Hojman et al. (2013) [20; 23], have shown that the existence of outstanding debt is a significant predictor of depression.
Review of Business and Economics Studies Volume 5, Number 2, 2017 It goes without saying that debt behavior is determined not only by personal traits or attitudes, but also by the knowledge and understanding of economic processes and phenomena — that is, by the level of financial literacy, which was defined at the beginning of this article. This fact is proved by a number of empirical studies. The works by Disney & Gathergood (2013) show the role that financial literacy plays in the formation of one’s credit portfolio. To assess the level financial literacy of the respondents, the latter were asked three questions: (1) a simple question on the calculation of interest, (2) a question on the understanding of the accumulation of interest on a loan and (3) the question related to the minimum payment. In addition, two more features were estimated: the level of self-consciousness in relation to financial literacy and the behavior aimed at improving it. The respondents who take consumer loans demonstrate a lower level of financial literacy than those who do not borrow at all. Besides, borrowers with a low level of financial literacy tend to take more expensive loans, as compared with borrowers with a high level of financial literacy. Despite the awareness of their incompetence in financial matters, people with a low level of financial literacy are less willing to attempt to improve their understanding of the credit market — for example, to read the financial press or receive information about new, favorable loan offers [17]. The results of J. Gathergood’s research (2012) provide convincing evidence that the lack of selfcontrol and a low level of financial literacy are positively correlated with defaults on consumer loans and self-reports of excessive debt burden. However, the analysis showed that the lack of selfcontrol plays a greater role as the explanation of over-indebtedness, as compared to the financial literacy [20]. It should be noted, however, that the increase in the level of financial literacy can lead to ambiguous consequences; for example, Brown, M., Grigsby, J., van der Klaauw, W., Wen, J. & Zafar, B. (2014) studied the effect of taking courses in finance on the future indebtedness. It turned out that studying mathematics and improving financial literacy does reduce the negative consequences such as bankruptcy and debt accumulation, but at the same time it also stimulates participation in the debt market and leads to an increase in the number of loans, which in turn can result in negative consequences in the future [10]. In addition, Gather good, J. & Weber J. (2014) revealed the relationship between the high level of financial literacy and the so-called “co-holding” — simultaneous ownership of expensive credits and illiquid deposit accounts. According to the information from their article, 12% of all households are “co-holders”. The average amount they owe to the bank is £3,800 and they make regular payments to pay down the borrowed amount and the interest set by the bank, in spite of having enough assets to cover all their credits at once. Co-holders generally have a higher level of financial literacy, their income is above average, and they also tend to be well educated. It was established that co-holding is linked to impulsive purchases and is often used as a way to control one’s spending, that is, as coping strategy [19]. So, what are the key factors that determine the level of financial literacy? Grohmann, A., Kouwenberg, R. & Menkhoff, L. (2015) distinguish three main predicators: family, school and work. In their paper, the authors combined two directions of research — the study of financial socialization, defining the role of a child’s experience in the formation of financial knowledge and behavior, and studies on financial literacy, describing the impact of financial literacy on the financial behavior of adults [21]. Thus, financial literacy serves as a link between the variables describing childhood experiences and adult economic behavior. Five scales serve as the childhood experience variables: parental education, financial socialization provided by parents, Economics lessons taught at the school, the quality of education, and financial socialization through experience of dealing with money in life or at work. To assess the level of financial literacy the researchers used the method developed by Lusardi & Mitchell — an assessment tool comprising three questions concerning the basic financial concepts: interest rates, inflation and diversification [30]. The researchers also used the number of available types of financial assets (except for savings accounts, which all respondents had) as an indicator of effective financial decision-making. The results showed two main directions to explain the effect of childhood experience on the level of financial literacy of adults. The first is the financial socialization provided by parents through teaching their kids to manage their budget and through encouraging savings behavior, which directly leads to improvement of financial literacy. In addition, provision of financial socialization of children by
Review of Business and Economics Studies Volume 5, Number 2, 2017 parents leads to the development of quantitative thinking (numeracy) and thus indirectly improves financial literacy. The second channel used to explain the role of the childhood experience in the formation of financial literacy is learning at school. In this case, the study of economics at school and a higher quality of education have an indirect effect on developing numeracy and thereby also contribute to improving financial literacy. The results confirmed that a higher level of financial literacy is associated with more efficient financial solutions. METHODS The aim of our study was to identify the relationship between social and psychological characteristics and the level of financial literacy on the one hand, and borrowing and debt behavior of Russian people on the other. Approximately 252 respondents aged from 18 to 67 took part in assessment; M=38,0 SD10,8; 158 women, 92 men (others not identified). In our survey we used snowball sampling. It is a non-probability sampling technique where existing study subjects recruit future subjects from among their acquaintances. The survey itself is comprised of approximately 130 questions. The hypothesis of this study, as has been described above, is that the differences between nonborrowers, borrowers fulfilling their obligations in full, and debtors come in three flavors: firstly, the willingness to borrow money and tolerance for the presence of loan; secondly, theoretical understanding of what a loan is and how it is to be paid, as well as the ability to match the available resources with one’s needs (financial and debt literacy); and, thirdly, there are certain psychological characteristics — such as emotional stability, awareness, responsibility and internality — which enable borrowers to take action to repay the loan. To check the first part of hypothesis we included a block of questions to gather information about gender, age, level of education, marital status, number of children, experience of borrowing and types of borrowing (if any) in the past, existence of outstanding loans at the moment, presence of arrears of payments, expectations about one’s own solvency within the next year and the willingness to take advantage of borrowing in microfinance institutions. The second block included questions on financial (particularly debt) literacy. To determine the level of financial literacy, we used the method described in the works of Lusardi & Tufano (2009) and Disney & Gathergood (2012) [20; 30]. The questions were translated into Russian and adapted: the amount shown in native currency and the interest rates were chosen in accordance with the real-life rates charged by Russian banks. Thus, the block of questions for assessing financial literacy included three questions that reveal one’s understanding of the basic concepts: I. “Marina has a credit card debt in the amount of 10,000 rubles; the annual interest rate is 15% per year. If she does not make payments to cover the arrears, what will be the amount she owes in 1 year, taking into account the interest rate? (Penalties and fines are excluded)” A) 8,500 rubles; B) 10,000 rubles; C) 11,500 rubles; D)15,000 rubles; E) I don’t know II. “Sergei has a credit card debt in the amount of 10,000 rubles; the annual interest rate is 20% per year. If he does not make payments to cover the arrears, how many years will it take for his debt to double?” A) Less than 5 years; B) from 5 to 10 years; C) more than 10 years; D) I don’t know III. “David has a credit card debt in the amount of 30,000 rubles; the annual interest rate is 12% per year (1% per month). He pays 300 rubles every month to cover the arrears, eliminating penalties and additional fees for using the card. How long will it take David to repay the debt in full under these conditions?” A) Less than 5 years; B) from 5 to 10 years; C) more than 10 years; D) He won’t repay the loan; E) I don’t know Two additional questions to clarify individual preferences in debt repayment were similar to questions described in Amar, Ariely, Ayal (2011) [8]: “3,000 rubles task” and “30,000 rubles task”. “3,000 rubles task”. Respondents were asked to imagine that they have two credit card accounts: a MasterCard account with a 3,000 rubles balance and a 19% annual percentage rate (APR), and a Visa account with a 30,000 rubles balance and a 24% APR. If they had just received either a 3,000 rubles or a 30,000 rubles bonus which account they would repay completely or how much would they pay on each account? Task was a multiplechoice test: there were three possible answers. In the “3,000 rubles task” the answers were: A) use all of the money (3,000 rubles) to pay down
Review of Business and Economics Studies Volume 5, Number 2, 2017 the debt of 3,000 rubles, B) use all of the money to pay down the debt of 30,000 rubles, C) divide the sum between the arrays. In the “30,000 rubles task” the options were: A) repay the 3,000 rub. debt in full; B) repay the 30,000 rub. debt in full, C) divide the money between the arrears, but not in the proportion of 3,000 rub. and 27,000 rub.” The third block contains psychodiagnostic techniques: “Debt behavior questionnaire by M. A. Gagarina”, “Locus of control” method and “The Big Five personality traits” technique. Because our main focus were psychological traits we included full versions of questionnaires. Debt behavior questionnaire by M. A. Gagarina comprises 30 questions which give us five scales (alpha Cronbach >= 0,75): Debt avoidance, Rational debt behavior, Debt attitudes and Internality in debt. Locus of control questionnaire (in Russian) comprises 44 questions which give us 7 scales representing the level of internality in different spheres: general, achievements, failures, family relations, professional sphere, interpersonal relations and health. Big Five (in Russian) comprises 40 questions which give us 5 scales: Extraversion, Neuroticism, Openness to experience, Conscientiousness and Agreeableness. EMPIRICAL RESULTS Social and demographic characteristics Sample characteristics are presented in Table 1. All respondents are split into three groups (Variable “Group” in further analysis): Non-borrowers, Borrowers/payers, Debtors. Non-borrowers — are individuals who deny having loans from any institutions or individuals. Borrowers/payers — are individuals who have taken a loan from a bank or other organization or from an individual. We included word ‘payers’ to emphasize that they have no overdue loans (and did not have overdue debts in the past as well) and distinguish them from borrowers with delayed or missed payments and bad debts. Debtors are individuals admitted that they had overdue loans or missed and delayed loan payments. From Table 1 we can conclude that our typical respondent is a woman from 36 to 45 years old, married, having 2 children, with higher education and working in an organization. The “non-borrowers” is mainly represented by individuals aged 18–25, with higher education, in most cases having no children and with a similar proportion of married and divorced respondents. In half of the cases the respondents are employed by organizations; the proportions of self-employed and unemployed are nearly equal. Borrowers/payers tend to fall into the 36 to 45-year-old category, with higher education, usually married and having two children, mostly being hired workers in organizations. Debtors are mostly are mostly concentrated in the 36 to 45-year-old category, with higher education, usually married and having two children, employed by organizations. In comparison with two other groups, this category contains a higher proportion of men. The most popular type of borrowing is consumer credit (73% of borrowing among payers and debtors), the next goes borrowing from relatives and friends (31%), then car loans, sometimes combined with consumer credit or borrowing from friends and relatives (22%) and after that comes mortgage (17%), followed by a combination of mortgage and other types of borrowing (13%) and the last are credit card (3%) and educational loan (1%). No significant differences (Chi-square, p<0,050) were found among frequencies of each type of borrowing among Debtors and Payers. One-way ANOVA was conducted to compare social and demographic characteristics of participants across Debtors, Non-borrowers and Payers. The independent variable (factor) is the Group, the dependent variables include Age, Sex, Marital status, Number of children and Employment status. To move from non-interval (qualitative) data to interval (quantitate) we used the dummy variable technique: we coded social and demographic characteristics in binary system (0 and 1). The results are presented in Table 2 and they confirm the fact that there is a significant difference in social and demographic characteristics. Summary statistics are presented in Table 3 and show that there are significant differences in Age, Marital status, Number of children between at least two groups. We continue the Post Hoc analysis (Turkey HSD for unequal sample) for scales with significant values to see which groups differ from one another. The results are presented in Tables 4–7. Table 4 represents the results for the variable Age: there is a significant difference between the
Review of Business and Economics Studies Volume 5, Number 2, 2017 Table 1. Sample characteristics Non-borrowers Borrowers/ payers Debtors General sample N 89 (35%) 131 (52%) 31 (12%) 251 Female 57 (66%) 87 (66%) 14 (45%) 158 (63%) Male 30 (34%) 44 (34%) 17 (55%) 91 (36%) Not identified 2 (1%) 0 0 2 (1%) 18–25 42 (47%) 24 (18%) 8 (26%) 74 (30%) 26–35 21 (16%) 13 (15%) 8 (26%) 42 (16%) 36–45 26 (29%) 53 (40%) 11 (35%) 90 (36%) 46–55 7 (8%) 24 (18%) 3 (10%) 34 (14%) Over 55 9 (7%) 1 (1%) 1 (3%) 11 (4%) Two higher education or PhD 8 (8%) 23 (19%) 4 (13%) 35 (14%) Higher education 71 (74%) 82 (66%) 19 (61%) 172 (69%) Secondary (special) education 17 (18%) 19 (15%) 7 (23%) 44 (17%) Married 48 (50%) 96 (79%) 21 (68%) 165 (66%) Not married 41 (43%) 16 (13%) 4 (13%) 61 (25%) Widow 0 1 (1%) 0 1 (<1%) Divorced 7 (7%) 9 (8%) 5 16%) 21 (8%) Married several times 0 0 1 (3%) 1 (<1%) Not identified 0 2 (1%) 0 2 (1%) Children: 0 42 (44%) 21 (17%) 10 (32%) 73 (29%) Children: 1 11 (12%) 35 (28%) 4 (13%) 50 (20%) Children: 2 35 (37%) 53 (43%) 14 (45%) 102 (41%) Children: 3 6 (6%) 12 (10%) 2 (7%) 20 (8%) Children: 4 1 (1%) 1 (1%) 0 2 (1%) Children: 5 0 1 (1%) 1 (1%) 2 (1%) Children: 6 0 1 (1%) 0 1 (<1%) Employed in organization 50 (52%) 77 (62%) 17 (55%) 144 (57%) Self-employed 21 (22%) 28 (23%) 6 (19%) 55 (22%) Unemployed 24 (25%) 19 (15%) 7 (23%) 51 (20%) Parental leave 0 0 1 (3%) 1 (<1%) Type of borrowing All groups Chi-square 131 (81%) 31 (19%) 162 Comsumer credit 0,06 58 (45%) 15 (48%) 73 (46%) Borrowing from individuals 0,16 26 (20%) 5 (16%) 31 (19%) Car loan (car loan plus credit from a bank or an individual) 1,33 20(16%) 2 (6%) 22 (14%) Mortgage 0,19 13 (10%) 4 (13%) 17 (11%) Mortgage plus credit from bank or individual 2,75 8 (6%) 5 (16%) 13 (8%) Credit card 0,71 3 (2%) 0 3 (2%) Education loan 0,24 1 (<1%) 0 1 (<1%)