4.5 Article

The silent diversion of knowledge: Examining inequality of financial knowledge

Journal

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/ijcs.12998

Keywords

decomposition analyses; financial education; financial experience; financial knowledge; financial literacy; income-related inequality

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study examines the income-related inequality in financial knowledge in the United States and its changes between 2012 and 2018. The findings indicate that financial experience, education, and numeracy are major contributing factors to the inequality. Moreover, the study shows that the income-related inequality in financial knowledge has decreased during the study period, mainly due to changes in financial experience. This research provides valuable insights for policymakers and educators interested in improving financial knowledge in the United States.
Scholars and policymakers have long been concerned about the lack of financial knowledge and the socioeconomic disparities in financial knowledge in the United States. The objectives of this study are (1) to assess the extent of income-related inequality in financial knowledge and how it changed between 2012 and 2018 and (2) to determine what factors explain the income-related inequality in financial knowledge and the change over time. Using National Financial Capability Study datasets, our study revealed that from 2012 to 2018 there was income-related inequality in financial knowledge. Financial experience, education, and numeracy were major contributing factors to inequality in financial knowledge, according to decomposition analysis. Income-related inequality in financial knowledge in the United States decreased between 2012 and 2018, mainly due to an overall change in financial experience. This study provides meaningful insights to policymakers and educators interested in improving financial knowledge in the United States.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available