4.7 Article

Can internet finance alleviate the exclusiveness of traditional finance? evidence from Chinese P2P lending markets

Journal

FINANCE RESEARCH LETTERS
Volume 40, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.frl.2020.101731

Keywords

Financial exclusion; Internet finance; Traditional finance; P2P Lending

Funding

  1. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities in University of International Business and Economics [19QD08]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This paper empirically explores the impact of Internet finance on financial exclusion, finding that city participation in P2P lending is positively linked to the degree of Internet development and negatively linked to the accessibility of traditional finance, with an obvious asymmetry in investment exclusion and borrowing exclusion levels. The findings suggest that Internet finance can weaken the exclusiveness of traditional finance and reduce the asymmetry in investment and borrowing exclusion levels in traditional financial markets.
Recently, burgeoning Internet finance has been considered a crucial tool for alleviating financial exclusion in China, but few studies have empirically investigated its effectiveness. Using unique daily city-level multiplatform peer-to-peer (P2P) lending data from China, this paper empirically explores whether and how Internet finance, such as P2P lending, can alleviate financial exclusion. We find that city participation in P2P lending is positively linked to the degree of Internet development and negatively linked to the accessibility of traditional finance and that there is an obvious asymmetry in the levels of investment exclusion and borrowing exclusion. This paper provides empirical evidence that Internet finance can weaken the exclusiveness of traditional finance and reduce the asymmetry in investment and borrowing exclusion levels in traditional financial markets.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available