反对公共银行业务的经济学理由,以及支持公共银行业务的理由

IF 2 Q1 LAW Journal of Financial Regulation Pub Date : 2024-01-05 DOI:10.1093/jfr/fjad012
Prasad Krishnamurthy, Tucker Cochenour
{"title":"反对公共银行业务的经济学理由,以及支持公共银行业务的理由","authors":"Prasad Krishnamurthy, Tucker Cochenour","doi":"10.1093/jfr/fjad012","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n In this article, we examine the economics of public consumer banking in the United States. Public expenditures on consumer banking can take the form of price subsidies or direct provision. The economic case for price subsidies is weak because the evidence suggests most unbanked consumers would prefer a cash grant. The economic case for public provision is also weak because the existing market failures in banking are better remedied by regulation. The exceptions to this rule are check cashing and related payment services, which could be supplied by the US Postal Service (USPS) at a lower cost than private providers. On the other hand, economic arguments for the superiority of cash transfers presume that the institutional infrastructure exists to deliver them. But an effective infrastructure for public transfers does not exist in the United States and is only possible with universal ownership of payment accounts, which in turn requires some form of public subsidy or provision. We suggest one path forward: expand the financial services currently offered to federal beneficiaries—such as Social Security recipients—by the Treasury.","PeriodicalId":42830,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Financial Regulation","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"An Economic Case against Public Banking, and a Case for It\",\"authors\":\"Prasad Krishnamurthy, Tucker Cochenour\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/jfr/fjad012\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n In this article, we examine the economics of public consumer banking in the United States. Public expenditures on consumer banking can take the form of price subsidies or direct provision. The economic case for price subsidies is weak because the evidence suggests most unbanked consumers would prefer a cash grant. The economic case for public provision is also weak because the existing market failures in banking are better remedied by regulation. The exceptions to this rule are check cashing and related payment services, which could be supplied by the US Postal Service (USPS) at a lower cost than private providers. On the other hand, economic arguments for the superiority of cash transfers presume that the institutional infrastructure exists to deliver them. But an effective infrastructure for public transfers does not exist in the United States and is only possible with universal ownership of payment accounts, which in turn requires some form of public subsidy or provision. We suggest one path forward: expand the financial services currently offered to federal beneficiaries—such as Social Security recipients—by the Treasury.\",\"PeriodicalId\":42830,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Financial Regulation\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Financial Regulation\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/jfr/fjad012\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Financial Regulation","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jfr/fjad012","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文将探讨美国公共消费银行的经济学问题。对消费者银行业务的公共支出可以采取价格补贴或直接提供的形式。价格补贴的经济理由不充分,因为有证据表明大多数没有银行账户的消费者更愿意接受现金补贴。提供公共服务的经济理由也不充分,因为银行业现有的市场失灵最好通过监管来弥补。但支票兑现和相关支付服务是例外,这些服务可以由美国邮政服务公司(USPS)以低于私人供应商的成本提供。另一方面,关于现金转移优越性的经济论点假定存在提供现金转移的制度基础设施。但美国并不存在有效的公共转账基础设施,只有在全民拥有支付账户的情况下才有可能,而这又需要某种形式的公共补贴或提供。我们建议一条前进之路:扩大财政部目前向联邦受益人(如社会保障受益人)提供的金融服务。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
An Economic Case against Public Banking, and a Case for It
In this article, we examine the economics of public consumer banking in the United States. Public expenditures on consumer banking can take the form of price subsidies or direct provision. The economic case for price subsidies is weak because the evidence suggests most unbanked consumers would prefer a cash grant. The economic case for public provision is also weak because the existing market failures in banking are better remedied by regulation. The exceptions to this rule are check cashing and related payment services, which could be supplied by the US Postal Service (USPS) at a lower cost than private providers. On the other hand, economic arguments for the superiority of cash transfers presume that the institutional infrastructure exists to deliver them. But an effective infrastructure for public transfers does not exist in the United States and is only possible with universal ownership of payment accounts, which in turn requires some form of public subsidy or provision. We suggest one path forward: expand the financial services currently offered to federal beneficiaries—such as Social Security recipients—by the Treasury.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.60
自引率
3.80%
发文量
12
期刊最新文献
Generative Artificial Intelligence and Cyber Security in Central Banking Enhancing Repo Market Transparency: The EU Securities Financing Transactions Regulation Correction to: Could it Happen in the EU? An Analysis of Loss Distributionbetween Shareholders and AT1 Bondholders under EU Law Ten Years of the Single Supervisory Mechanism: Looking into the Past, Navigating into the Future “Tis new to thee’: response to Gruenewald, Knijp, Schoenmaker, and van Tilburg
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1