What are the determinants of financial well-being? A Bayesian LASSO approach

IF 0.9 4区经济学 Q3 ECONOMICS

American Journal of Economics and Sociology Pub Date : 2022-12-12 DOI:10.1111/ajes.12489

Donald J. Lacombe, Nasima Khatun

引用次数: 2

Abstract

The financial well-being (FWB) of individuals is a topic that is becoming increasingly important across a multitude of disciplines. In this study, we use the 2016 National Financial Well-Being Survey administered by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to assess the determinants of an individual's FWB. We identify 144 potential covariates that could explain variation in the FWB score of individuals. The statistical methodology of choice is the Bayesian LASSO, which is a covariate selection algorithm that also allows for the importance ranking of covariates. Out of the 144 potential covariates, we find that 26 have 95% credible intervals that do not contain zero. Broadly speaking, the results show that objective measures of financial competency and psychological and sociological factors contribute the bulk of the explanatory power that help explain an individual's FWB score.

查看原文本刊更多论文

财务健康的决定因素是什么?贝叶斯套索方法

个人的财务状况(FWB)是一个在众多学科中变得越来越重要的话题。在本研究中，我们使用由消费者金融保护局管理的2016年全国金融福利调查来评估个人FWB的决定因素。我们确定了144个潜在的协变量，可以解释个体FWB评分的变化。选择的统计方法是贝叶斯LASSO，这是一种协变量选择算法，也允许协变量的重要性排序。在144个潜在协变量中，我们发现26个具有不包含零的95%可信区间。从广义上讲，结果表明，财务能力的客观测量以及心理和社会学因素贡献了大部分解释力，有助于解释个人的FWB得分。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

American Journal of Economics and Sociology Multiple-

CiteScore

1.90

自引率

12.50%

发文量

期刊介绍： The American Journal of Economics and Sociology (AJES) was founded in 1941, with support from the Robert Schalkenbach Foundation, to encourage the development of transdisciplinary solutions to social problems. In the introduction to the first issue, John Dewey observed that “the hostile state of the world and the intellectual division that has been built up in so-called ‘social science,’ are … reflections and expressions of the same fundamental causes.” Dewey commended this journal for its intention to promote “synthesis in the social field.” Dewey wrote those words almost six decades after the social science associations split off from the American Historical Association in pursuit of value-free knowledge derived from specialized disciplines. Since he wrote them, academic or disciplinary specialization has become even more pronounced. Multi-disciplinary work is superficially extolled in major universities, but practices and incentives still favor highly specialized work. The result is that academia has become a bastion of analytic excellence, breaking phenomena into components for intensive investigation, but it contributes little synthetic or holistic understanding that can aid society in finding solutions to contemporary problems. Analytic work remains important, but in response to the current lop-sided emphasis on specialization, the board of AJES has decided to return to its roots by emphasizing a more integrated and practical approach to knowledge.