Abstract
AbstractPrevious research has related household financial fragility (FF) and the employment status of the household members by focusing only on the labour income channel. In contrast, the literature has scarcely addressed the study of this relationship from a psychological perspective that could be related to the theory of bounded rationality. This article aims to analyse how job expectations relate to the level of household FF. Using a sample of 8554 Spanish individuals in the period 2016–2017, we construct a multidimensional index of household FF. The results indicate that households with unemployed, self-employed, or part-time workers have higher levels of FF, but the job expectations of the household and the individual play an even more important role in the level of the FF. These findings suggest that the perception of labour market uncertainty may influence the level of household FF to a greater extent than the objective employment situations of the individuals.
Funder
Ministerio de Universidades. Gobierno de España
Universidade de Santiago de Compostela
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Economics and Econometrics,Social Sciences (miscellaneous),Mathematics (miscellaneous),Statistics and Probability
Reference65 articles.
1. Ali L, Khan MKN, Ahmad H (2020) Financial fragility of Pakistani household. J Fam Econ Issues 41(3):572–590. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10834-020-09683-y
2. Anderloni L, Bacchiocchi E, Vandone D (2012) Household financial vulnerability: an empirical analysis. Res Econ 66(3):284–296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rie.2012.03.001
3. Arellano A, Cámara N, Mejía D (2019) “Disentangling vulnerability through consumer behavior: The role of financial health” Working Paper 19/11. BBVA Research. Madrid.
4. Arellano A, Cámara N (2020) Vulnerabilidad financiera de los hogares ante la COVID-19. http://hdl.handle.net/11531/51154
5. Arellano A, Cámara N (2021) Vulnerabilidad financiera de los hogares: evidencia para el País Vasco y el resto de España. EKONOMIAZ Revista Vasca De Economía 100(2):94–119