英语论文网

Abstract摘要

次级贷款的金融化已经成为近一段时期的批评家的倒数第二个案例研究，或新自由主义更广泛，因为它暴露了掠夺性贷款和对社会最弱势群体参观了有害的社会成本最挥霍的倾向。我们使用的消费者财务状况调查（SCF）对单身女性为户主的家庭，以及如何在特定的黑人单身母亲在不同的次贷繁荣的影响，可以说是更为有害的方式。已经有相当多的证据显示，次贷是不成比例地卖给妇女，特别是少数民族妇女。专注于单一的母亲，揭示了重要的性别和种族层面的贷款技术，但它也显示了如何被边缘化的家庭越来越多地依赖于住房财富（股权）调整，以减少购买力。因此，与所有制社会的崇高期望相反，许多低收入妇女的高抵押贷款意味着他们拥有自己的房子的比例较小（解散），比以往任何时候都多。关键词社会分层，金融包容性，次级抵押贷款部门，家庭负债掠夺性银行贷款，财富（存款）积累。Subprime lending has become the penultimate case study for critics of the recent period of financialization, or neo-liberalism more broadly, because it exposes the most profligate tendencies of predatory lending and the pernicious social costs visited on society’s most vulnerable groups. This article builds on the social stratification and wealth accumulation literature. We assess how mounting debt levels and crippling costs of servicing these debts compared to relatively flat income growth for female-headed households have resulted in wealth (dis)accumulation. We use the Survey of Consumer Finances (SCF) to analyze how single female-headed households, and in particular how African American single mothers were affected by the subprime boom in different, arguably more pernicious, ways. There is already considerable evidence showing that subprime lending was disproportionally sold to women, particularly minority women. Focusing on single mothers reveals important gender and racial dimensions of the lending techniques, but it also shows how marginalized families increasingly relied on housing wealth (equity) to adjust to shrinking purchasing power. Thus, contrary to the lofty expectations of the ownership society, the high mortgage debts of many low-income women suggest they own a lesser share of their homes – (dis)accumulation of wealth – than at any previous time. Key Words Social stratification, financial inclusion, subprime sector, family indebtedness predatory bank lending, wealth (dis)accumulation.

Introduction介绍

Critical approaches to the study of finance have long emphasized the relationship between financial integration and deepening social inequality. Whether it be third-world sovereign debt, corporate financing or household borrowing, the conditions of access to credit create barriers between those that are included and excluded from mainstream financing. It is at these junctures between inclusion and exclusion in which finance wields its political and socio-economic power (Mooslechner et al., 2006). The transition to subprime lending, particularly post-2001, re-shaped the boundaries of financial access as macro-conditions of cheap credit and excess liquidity created a lucrative opportunity for banks to lend to previously excluded groups. Due to the wide-spread practice of ‘redlining’ and discrimination, low-income groups were systematically excluded from gaining access to mortgage loans prior to the 1990s (Dymski 2009). By adapting the rhetoric of ‘democratizing finance’, subprime lenders used credit-scoring techniques to justify lending to low-income groups under the auspice of greater financial inclusion. There is already considerable evidence that shows subprime lending was concentrated in low-income communities, especially racial minority-communities (Calem, Gillen et al. 2004; Dymski 2009)1 and was disproportionately sold to women, particularly minority women (Fishbein and Woodall 2006). By counting the number of high-cost subprime loans sold in low-income communities—or by comparing women and minority groups