IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/diw/diwvjh/89-1-7.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Systemic Usury and the European Consumer Credit Directive

Author

Listed:
  • Doris Neuberger
  • Udo Reifner

Abstract

Usury is a frequent occurrence in consumer credit markets and particularly affects low-income households. Although the term usury conjures images of a greedy individual consciously acting to exploit the weak bargaining position of another by deceitful and even fraudulent means, we consider it as a systemic issue: as a problem of social discrimination, where belonging to a group which is statistically discriminated against leads to entrapment in a chain of usurious credit and financial contracts. This paper reviews the economic rationale for usury legislation and evaluates the European Consumer Credit Directive 2008/48/EC in this context. It identifies systemic usury as the product of market failure: the most powerful explanations for which are monopoly power, where the consumer is locked in a bilateral credit relationship; discrimination through risk-based pricing, and negative externalities. Contrary to the main focus of the European Consumer Credit Directive, improved disclosure of contract terms and other relevant information to consumers at the point of contracting cannot address systemic usury in credit markets. Even fully informed consumers can be discriminated against and become trapped in a situation of bilateral monopoly. As a consequence, the Directive is found to be ineffective: it implicitly acknowledges usurious practices and products as legal and undermines the national fight against usury. The Directive must be reformed. Wucher ist ein häufiges Phänomen auf den Verbraucherkreditmärkten und betrifft insbesondere Haushalte mit niedrigem Einkommen. Obwohl der Begriff Wucher Bilder eines gierigen Individuums beschwört, das bewusst handelt, um die schwache Verhandlungsposition eines anderen mit irreführenden und sogar betrügerischen Mitteln auszunutzen, betrachten wir ihn als systemisches Problem: als ein Problem der sozialen Diskriminierung, bei dem die Zugehörigkeit zu einer statistisch diskriminierten Gruppe zu einer Einklemmung in eine Kette von wucherischen Kredit- und Finanzverträgen führt. Dieses Papier untersucht die ökonomischen Argumente für die Wuchergesetzgebung und bewertet in diesem Zusammenhang die Europäische Verbraucherkreditrichtlinie 2008/48/EG. Es identifiziert systemischen Wucher als das Ergebnis von Marktversagen: Die überzeugendsten Erklärungen dafür sind Monopolmacht, bei der der Verbraucher in einer bilateralen Kreditbeziehung gefangen ist, Diskriminierung durch risikoorientierte Preisgestaltung und negative Externalitäten. Im Gegensatz zum Hauptaugenmerk der Europäischen Verbraucherkreditrichtlinie kann eine verbesserte Offenlegung von Vertragsbedingungen und anderen relevanten Informationen für die Verbraucher zum Zeitpunkt der Vertragsunterzeichnung nicht auf systemischen Wucher auf den Kreditmärkten abzielen. Selbst voll informierte Verbraucher können diskriminiert werden und in einer Situation des bilateralen Monopols gefangen sein. Infolgedessen erweist sich die Richtlinie als unwirksam: Sie erkennt implizit wucherische Praktiken und Produkte als legal an und untergräbt die nationale Bekämpfung von Wucher. Die Richtlinie muss reformiert werden.

Suggested Citation

  • Doris Neuberger & Udo Reifner, 2020. "Systemic Usury and the European Consumer Credit Directive," Vierteljahrshefte zur Wirtschaftsforschung / Quarterly Journal of Economic Research, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research, vol. 89(1), pages 115-132.
  • Handle: RePEc:diw:diwvjh:89-1-7
    DOI: 10.3790/vjh.89.1.115
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.3790/vjh.89.1.115
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.3790/vjh.89.1.115?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Alicia Robb & David T. Robinson, 2018. "Testing for racial bias in business credit scores," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 50(3), pages 429-443, March.
    2. Brian T. Melzer, 2011. "The Real Costs of Credit Access: Evidence from the Payday Lending Market," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 126(1), pages 517-555.
    3. Alyssa Labat & Walter Block, 2012. "Money Does Not Grow on Trees: An Argument for Usury," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 106(3), pages 383-387, March.
    4. James Kau & Donald Keenan & Henry Munneke, 2012. "Racial Discrimination and Mortgage Lending," The Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, Springer, vol. 45(2), pages 289-304, August.
    5. Robert Mayer, 2013. "When and Why Usury Should be Prohibited," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 116(3), pages 513-527, September.
    6. Mill, John Stuart, 1848. "Principles of Political Economy (II): Distribution," History of Economic Thought Books, McMaster University Archive for the History of Economic Thought, volume 2, number mill1848-2.
    7. Posner, Eric A, 1995. "Contract Law in the Welfare State: A Defense of the Unconscionablility Doctrine, Usury Laws, and Related Limitations on the Freedom to Contract," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 24(2), pages 283-319, June.
    8. Ulbricht, Dirk & Al-Umaray, Kerim Sebastian & Butenob, Matthias & Hebebrand, Laura & Kranz, Vincent & Stähr, Daniel & Ulikowski, Cathrin, 2016. "iff-Überschuldungsreport 2016: Überschuldung in Deutschland," iff-Überschuldungsreport, Institut für Finanzdienstleistungen e.V. (iff), number 2016, September.
    9. Giuseppe Coco & David De Meza, 2009. "In Defense of Usury Laws," Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 41(8), pages 1691-1703, December.
    10. Sheila Ards & Inhyuck Ha & Jose-Luis Mazas & Samuel Myers, 2015. "Bad Credit and Intergroup Differences in Loan Denial Rates," The Review of Black Political Economy, Springer;National Economic Association, vol. 42(1), pages 19-34, June.
    11. Ulbricht, Dirk & Peters, Sally, 2018. "iff-Überschuldungsreport 2018: Überschuldung in Deutschland," iff-Überschuldungsreport, Institut für Finanzdienstleistungen e.V. (iff), number 2018, September.
    12. John P. Caskey, 2010. "Payday lending: new research and the big question," Working Papers 10-32, Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia.
    13. Mill, John Stuart, 1848. "Principles of Political Economy (III): Exchange," History of Economic Thought Books, McMaster University Archive for the History of Economic Thought, volume 3, number mill1848-3.
    14. Patrick Bayer & Fernando Ferreira & Stephen L. Ross, 2018. "What Drives Racial and Ethnic Differences in High-Cost Mortgages? The Role of High-Risk Lenders," The Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 31(1), pages 175-205.
    15. Morse, Adair, 2011. "Payday lenders: Heroes or villains?," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 102(1), pages 28-44, October.
    16. Li, Mingliang & Mumford, Kevin J. & Tobias, Justin L., 2012. "A Bayesian analysis of payday loans and their regulation," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 171(2), pages 205-216.
    17. Boot, Arnoud W. A., 2000. "Relationship Banking: What Do We Know?," Journal of Financial Intermediation, Elsevier, vol. 9(1), pages 7-25, January.
    18. Marianne Bertrand & Adair Morse, 2011. "Information Disclosure, Cognitive Biases, and Payday Borrowing," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 66(6), pages 1865-1893, December.
    19. Mill, John Stuart, 1848. "Principles of Political Economy (I): Production," History of Economic Thought Books, McMaster University Archive for the History of Economic Thought, volume 1, number mill1848-1.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Peters, Sally & Roggemann, Hanne & Tran, Manh Cuong & Päsler, Maximilian, 2022. "iff-Überschuldungsreport 2022: Überschuldung in Deutschland," iff-Überschuldungsreport, Institut für Finanzdienstleistungen e.V. (iff), number 2022, September.
    2. Peters, Sally & Größl, Ingrid & Arnold, Eva, 2020. "iff-Überschuldungsreport 2020: Überschuldung in Deutschland," iff-Überschuldungsreport, Institut für Finanzdienstleistungen e.V. (iff), number 2020, September.
    3. Peters, Sally & Roggemann, Hanne & Müller, Stefanie, 2021. "iff-Überschuldungsreport 2021: Überschuldung in Deutschland," iff-Überschuldungsreport, Institut für Finanzdienstleistungen e.V. (iff), number 2021, September.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Robert Mayer, 2013. "When and Why Usury Should be Prohibited," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 116(3), pages 513-527, September.
    2. Ryszard Kowalski & Grzegorz Wałęga, 2022. "Regulation of Usury: Justification, Consequences, and Some Lessons from Polish Experience," Gospodarka Narodowa. The Polish Journal of Economics, Warsaw School of Economics, issue 2, pages 57-73.
    3. Dasgupta, Kabir & Mason, Brenden J., 2020. "The effect of interest rate caps on bankruptcy: Synthetic control evidence from recent payday lending bans," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 119(C).
    4. J. Brandon Bolen & Gregory Elliehausen & Thomas W. Miller, 2020. "Do Consumers Need More Protection From Small‐Dollar Lenders? Historical Evidence And A Roadmap For Future Research," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 58(4), pages 1577-1613, October.
    5. Murizah Osman Salleh & Aziz Jaafar & M. Shahid Ebrahim, 2012. "Can an interest-free credit facility be more efficient than a usurious payday loan?," Working Papers 12008, Bangor Business School, Prifysgol Bangor University (Cymru / Wales).
    6. Desai, Chintal A. & Elliehausen, Gregory, 2017. "The effect of state bans of payday lending on consumer credit delinquencies," The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 94-107.
    7. McCloskey Deirdre Nansen, 2018. "The Two Movements in Economic Thought, 1700–2000: Empty Economic Boxes Revisited," Man and the Economy, De Gruyter, vol. 5(2), pages 1-20, December.
    8. Eloi Laurent & Jacques Le Cacheux, 2006. "Integrity and Efficiency in the EU: The Case against the European economic constitution," Working Papers hal-00972707, HAL.
    9. Peter T. Leeson, 2009. "The Laws of Lawlessness," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 38(2), pages 471-503, June.
    10. Agarwal, Sumit & Amromin, Gene & Ben-David, Itzhak & Chomsisengphet, Souphala & Evanoff, Douglas D., 2014. "Predatory lending and the subprime crisis," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 113(1), pages 29-52.
    11. Ian Keay, 2019. "Protection for maturing industries: Evidence from Canadian trade patterns and trade policy, 1870–1913," Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 52(4), pages 1464-1496, November.
    12. Robert Scherf & Matthew Weinzierl, 2020. "Understanding Different Approaches to Benefit‐Based Taxation," Fiscal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 41(2), pages 385-410, June.
    13. Marieke Bos & Chloé Le Coq & Peter van Santen, 2022. "Scarcity and consumers’ credit choices," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 92(1), pages 105-139, February.
    14. Dario Stevanato, 2017. "Tassazione progressiva, equit? del prelievo e Flat Tax," ECONOMIA E SOCIET? REGIONALE, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 2017(1), pages 122-147.
    15. Donald P. Morgan & Michael R. Strain & Ihab Seblani, 2012. "How Payday Credit Access Affects Overdrafts and Other Outcomes," Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 44, pages 519-531, March.
    16. Melitz, Marc J., 2005. "When and how should infant industries be protected?," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 66(1), pages 177-196, May.
    17. Jacobsen, Catrine & Piovesan, Marco, 2016. "Tax me if you can: An artifactual field experiment on dishonesty," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 7-14.
    18. Martimort, David, 1996. "The multiprincipal nature of government," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 40(3-5), pages 673-685, April.
    19. Oscar Molina Tejerina & Luis Castro Peñarrieta, 2020. "Unexplained Wage Gaps in the Tradable and Nontradable Sectors: Cross-Sectional Evidence by Gender in Bolivia," Investigación & Desarrollo, Universidad Privada Boliviana, vol. 20(1), pages 5-23.
    20. Garber, Gabriel & Mian, Atif & Ponticelli, Jacopo & Sufi, Amir, 2024. "Consumption smoothing or consumption binging? The effects of government-led consumer credit expansion in Brazil," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 156(C).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Discrimination; Consumer Credit Directive; incomplete information; payment protection insurance; overindebtedness; monopoly power; responsible lending; risk-based pricing; usury;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D14 - Microeconomics - - Household Behavior - - - Household Saving; Personal Finance
    • D18 - Microeconomics - - Household Behavior - - - Consumer Protection
    • D42 - Microeconomics - - Market Structure, Pricing, and Design - - - Monopoly
    • D62 - Microeconomics - - Welfare Economics - - - Externalities
    • D63 - Microeconomics - - Welfare Economics - - - Equity, Justice, Inequality, and Other Normative Criteria and Measurement
    • G21 - Financial Economics - - Financial Institutions and Services - - - Banks; Other Depository Institutions; Micro Finance Institutions; Mortgages
    • G28 - Financial Economics - - Financial Institutions and Services - - - Government Policy and Regulation
    • G51 - Financial Economics - - Household Finance - - - Household Savings, Borrowing, Debt, and Wealth
    • K15 - Law and Economics - - Basic Areas of Law - - - Civil Law; Common Law
    • K22 - Law and Economics - - Regulation and Business Law - - - Business and Securities Law
    • K33 - Law and Economics - - Other Substantive Areas of Law - - - International Law
    • L12 - Industrial Organization - - Market Structure, Firm Strategy, and Market Performance - - - Monopoly; Monopolization Strategies
    • L14 - Industrial Organization - - Market Structure, Firm Strategy, and Market Performance - - - Transactional Relationships; Contracts and Reputation

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:diw:diwvjh:89-1-7. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Bibliothek (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/diwbede.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.