Author
Listed:
- Leo Van Hove
- Muzaffarjon Ahunov
Abstract
Despite questions surrounding their reliability, much of the financial literacy literature continues to rely on simple metrics – without checking whether using an alternative might yield different findings. The present paper does just that: we replicate two prior studies and substitute the Standard & Poor’s indicator originally used with the Big Three and OECD/INFE metrics. The results are disconcerting. In the first study, many of the relationships between national culture and country-level financial literacy become weakly significant or disappear altogether. The second study is also of a cross-country nature but analyses the impact of financial literacy on financial inclusion. Here, the magnitude of the coefficient on financial literacy in the OLS regressions decreases substantially once we use alternative metrics. In one case, the coefficient drops by no less than 69 per cent with the OECD/INFE metric, and by between one-third and half with the Big Three. Even more concerning, the Instrumental Variable regressions show no causal relationship anymore. These findings are a strong signal that the literature would benefit from revisiting several key papers, especially those relying on cross-country data.While research employing short financial literacy tests has expanded almost exponentially over recent decades, studies questioning whether these tests are overly simplistic remain relatively scarce. Our work contributes to this emerging literature. Specifically, we replicate two existing studies—one examining the antecedents of financial literacy and another its consequences—and replace the original literacy indicators with metrics that are supposed to be similar. We find that many results either vanish entirely or weaken considerably. We hope this paper inspires further scrutiny of financial literacy tests.
Suggested Citation
Leo Van Hove & Muzaffarjon Ahunov, 2024.
"Financial literacy: different indicator, different insights?,"
Cogent Economics & Finance, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 12(1), pages 2437005-243, December.
Handle:
RePEc:taf:oaefxx:v:12:y:2024:i:1:p:2437005
DOI: 10.1080/23322039.2024.2437005
Download full text from publisher
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.
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:taf:oaefxx:v:12:y:2024:i:1:p:2437005. 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.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/OAEF20 .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.