The following is a translation of preliminary results from
research conducted by José Ossandón, with the support of Tomás Ariztía, Macarena Barros, and Camila
Peralta, and funded by IMTFI.
Luisa is a 54-year-old housewife who
lives in the municipality of La Pintana, south of Santiago. Seven others live in her household: her husband Patrick, her children Nacho, Paty, and Andrea, her
son-in-law Rafael, and her grandchildren Camila and Cristian. Luisa also has a
fourth daughter Katia, who lives with her husband Rodrigo in the same
neighborhood. Luisa’s husband Patrick works as a freelance painter sporadically,
and he earns on average 150,000 pesos (US$312) a month. In addition to
housework, Luisa manages a kiosco or small shop in her home, which earns her between
20-30,000 pesos a month. Andrea and her husband work and take care of their own
expenses. Paty, in turn, is unemployed and so receives help from her parents to
cover her expenses and those of her daughter. Nacho is studying nursing with
the support of a loan (called a Crédito Aval del Estado, or State-Guaranteed
Credit) and recently has begun to receive his first income as an occasional
worker in construction. Luisa and her family maintain their home with the money
that Luisa and her husband earn and with the financial support they receive
from their children.
With regards to her financial life, Luisa
has a savings account, an emergency fund of 40,000 pesos cobbled together with
money from the kiosk in the BancoEstado, a state-owned financial institution.
Since Luisa and her husband have informal jobs, neither has access to checking
accounts or bank loans. Luisa is, however, an active participant in three
informal financial institutions, two pollas (rotating savings organizations)
and a caja común (“common fund”) that functions as a Christmas savings club.
The caja can also be used as a source of credit, but under certain restrictions. Loans
must be repaid with interest, there are fines for late payments, and if a
member misses her quota for three consecutive dates, she is removed from the group
and the money she has contributed up to that point is not returned to her.
Luisa also has access to loans offered
by retail companies. Ten years ago, she acquired her first credit card in the
department store La Polar and a few years later, ended up with cards from
Paris, Corona, Tricot, Fashion Park, and Salcobrand. Two years ago, however,
after feeling that her debts were spiraling out of control, she closed the
Tricot, Fashion Park, and Salcobrand cards, and, a year ago, a loan
renegotiation ended with La Polar blocking her card; today, then, she only holds
cards from Paris and Corona. Luisa uses these store cards in various ways. For
example, between September 2011 and February 2012, she used the AlmacenesParis
card to purchase two pairs of sneakers for her son Nacho, a cell phone for
herself, and merchandise in a supermarket, which is part of the same business
group as the store and where this card is also accepted. Each purchase was paid
for in six installments. She also used the Corona card for a cash advance.
But Luisa did not use her cards
only for her own purchases. For example, between December 2011 and January 2012,
Luisa lent her Paris card nine times to her daughter Andrea—three times for
installment purchases of merchandise, another five times to purchase goods in
the shop (shoes, an iron, an oven, and pants for her son), and once for a cash
advance consisting of six installments of 15000 pesos each. In addition, in
February 2010, Luisa lent her card from La Polar to Andrea to buy a
refrigerator; she also lent her Corona card to Andrea for an advance of ten installments
of 10,000 pesos. Luisa has also lent her La Polar card to her daughter
Katya for a cash advance and for a furniture purchase, and the Corona card to
her daughter Paty to buy an iron in ten installments. On two other occasions, moreover, Luisa's son-in-law Rafael used her Corona card, once to buy
himself sneakers and another time to buy a cell phone for his son.
In our qualitative study of the
financial practices of thirteen households in three municipalities in
low-income sectors of Santiago, we encountered many stories like this one. These
stories, much like those recently described by Ariel Wilkis, do not necessarily fit into the traditional
categories associated with studies of popular finance. Here there is no clear
demarcation between formal and informal financial inclusion. There is
exclusion, without a doubt, in the sense that these stories are about people
without access to bank credit, often because they do not have access to formal
employment, or to so-called créditos sociales (“social credits”) from cajas
and cooperatives. These stories also speak to popular finance, since like Luisa,
many of our respondents are active participants in “pollas” or other rotating
savings and credit associations. Yet, such stories also evince formal inclusion and
economic rationality in the traditional sense. The credit cards of retail
businesses are almost universally present in the homes we studied, and we encountered
many stories of people who, over the years, have become experts on interest
rates, loan renegotiations, and installments—a complexity that is multiplied if
we also consider that many deal with several cards at once.
It is in this context that we encountered the practice of lending and borrowing retail credit cards. Obviously, we were aware before our investigation that, just
as it is common for Chileans to lend health insurance vouchers (bonos) to one
another, they also lend retail credit cards to one another. What we did not
expect was that in every home we visited, we would find such lending and borrowing and the
degree of complexity that emerged as a result. In this way, little by little, card lending came to constitute the main object of our attention. In this post, we use some
elements of recent work in economic sociology to begin to unravel what this is
all about.
Sociology of the Quota
In short, it is not difficult to
associate the practice of card lending to the basic principle of the new
economic sociology, as formulated by Mark Granovetter in 1985 (.pdf). At first glance, credit cards might
appear to be private property, owned and managed by the person whose name is in
the card, but closer observation of card lending reveals a parallel and collective circuit of
debt—that is, a network. Still, how and what might we see were we to examine the lending of credit
cards as a network? What are the nodes and types of relations? How to
classify the types of actors involved?
Inspired by the description offered by one of our favorite sociologists John Law (2007) of the advantages of “pin boards” or bulletin boards as a way to think visually, we felt we should pursue a more experimental path to
understanding such lending networks. Instead of working directly
with relational data visualization software (such as Pajek), we, therefore, decided to
embrace the flexibility afforded by using our own hands. Armed with
the necessary materials—cork bulletin board, yarn, and pushpins of different
sizes and colors—we met to search for a way to think visually about what we
were finding.
This is the case of Luisa. The red pins
represent her and her husband, and blue pins below, her daughters and sons. The
large pins represent retail store cards. In this case, Luisa is the only one
with cards—one from Paris, one from Corona, and another from La Polar. The yarn
threads represent uses of a card involving some form of credit, and they
connect the person who receives the loan of the card with the credit card used
for the transaction. As can be seen, Luisa has used her three cards for personal transactions, but the same cards
have also been used by her daughters and sons-in-law.
We completed similar exercises with the
other twelve households. Seen below are the networks of retails card use in the households of Carmen, Marisol, and Yeni.
After several attempts, the images you
can see here have left us satisfied as a good way of visualizing our data. But
the central question remains: So what? What is this all about? As has been
already mentioned and as can be seen clearly above, credit card lending
practices produce networks. But what kind of collective or social formation are
we talking about? At what level do these networks operate?
The Scale of the Quota Economy
One option is to focus on the nuclear family or
household as the fundamental unit of such networks. As we saw in the same case of Luisa, however, card lending can span
different family units living together in the same residence. A second option
is the family or networks of extended kinship. Luisa not only lends her cards
to her family members living in the same property, but also her daughter Paty,
who lives in another house. In several of the cases studied, however, we found
card lending extending beyond the family to friends and neighbors. The case of
two homes that were connected via two friends turns out to be instructive in
this way.
A useful concept for expressing this
particular type of social formation is that of “commercial circuits” developed by sociologist Viviana Zelizer (2010), which refers to circuits of economic transfers among a delimited
group of actors, who bestow upon these transactions a shared meaning. These
circuits of transactions establish a clear line of belonging and make use of a
particular medium of payment. We suggest that each of these networks of credit
card lending functions as a commercial circuit that frames or connects to existing
collectives—neighborhoods, families, or households—but that also has its own
emergent character and forms of inclusion and exclusion. Indeed, as shown in
the first of the following citations, an important part of the interviews
revolved around the edges or boundaries drawn when a commitment is broken and
how the limits of these circuits can be re-established.
“Flor, my neighbor, was slow to pay, so now I don’t lend them [cards] to her, because then she takes a long time to pay and I have to pay everything myself. And afterwards, they screw you with the card.” (Luisa)
“Imagine, for instance, each installment is 10,200 pesos. I give my mom eleven or twelve lucas [Chilean slang for 1,000 pesos], I always give her a bit more, because they always charge my mom for the mail service, the use of the cards, whatever damn fee they add—a thousand of this, fifteen hundred of the other. It’s the same with my dad, they are always charging him five lucas extra, so I always give some money on top [of the installment amount] to my mom.” (Patricia)
Moreover, as the second quotation,
taken from another case, illustrates, such circuits entail a system of parallel
calculations, which are in fact often drawn in the margins of the
monthly bill.
But what is lent? What is
the medium of this circuit? To understand this, it is important to consider
that here we are not talking about just any network. In more technical
terminology, these are 2-Mode networks, since the actors are not connected
directly among each other, but through nodes of a different type. What we have
here are people connected among each other through the use of a common card.
The cards, in turn, are not just any node. They correspond to what Callon, Millo and Muniesa (2007) have called “market devices”—that is, objects that
do not only mediate between humans, but have an active role in the
transformation of the relations that they connect.
Unlike a traditional commercial
exchange, whose mode of payment is cash and for which there is no record
besides the receipt, every transaction realized with a card is recorded, as the
bills we receive at the end of each month repeatedly remind us. This information
is key to the operation of retail companies, which statistically evaluate the
behavior of each of its customers. The type of evaluation performed by Chilean
retailers is called “sowing” (Ossandón 2012), and it consists of extending credit, or increasing the
credit limit associated with each card, not only based on external variables
(such as income, age, or state of employment), but also on payment behavior. In
other words, if the card lending among family members and friends is “managed”
well, in the sense of paying off the debts as they are generated, the increased
use of the card increases the credit limit assigned to it.
This brief “socio-technical” detour is
important, because it allows us to understand something key, that the medium of
the commercial circuit described here is the credit limit itself. People do not
lend money, but the capacity to borrow and go into debt, their quota (or "cupo" in Spanish, a word that suggests both a bound and an allotment), that is
delimited by the algorithms of retailers’ risk analysis systems. It is, therefore, no
coincidence that at the center of our networks we find “dueñas de casas” (female heads of household). Their centrality is directly
related to the “discovery” by stores’ analysts that adult women are
statistically better “pagadores” (payers), despite sometimes lacking their
own income. What stores probably do not know—or do not care to know, since their
concern is timely payment, not a sociological understanding of what lies behind
each customer—is that behind each card is the emergence of a new financial
circuit, an entire “economy of the quota.”
In this post, we have used some visual
and conceptual tools of economic sociology to begin to understand this economy.
But this is only a first step. We believe that deepening our understanding of
this economy of the quota (economía del cupo) is not only academically relevant, but also may help
us to understand better how the boundaries between financial inclusion and
exclusion are being reformulated today ...
* The names in the cases and quotations
have been changed to maintain anonymity.
Text prepared by José Ossandón for 7th Chilean Congress of Sociology, University of La Frontera,
Pucón—24, 25 and 26 October 2012. From the work of the research team led by
Ossandón, with the participation of Macarena Barros, Camila Peralta, and Tomás
Ariztía. Study developed in Programa de Estudios del Consumo y los Mercados, Instituto de Investigación en Ciencias Sociales (ICSO), Universidad Diego Portales, and funded by the Institute
for Money, Technology and Financial Inclusion at the University of California,
Irvine.
Text in Spanish
originally posted at the blog Estudios de la Economia. Translated by Taylor Nelms, with assistance from Smoki Musaraj.
Financial inclusion is completely relevant in to days global financial system. It is very important to take it into account and if necessary to institute quotas to help hedge the risks of low-income individuals with public funds if necessary.
ReplyDeletenice info thank's
ReplyDelete