From Credit Risk to Social Impact: On the Funding Determinants in Interest-Free Peer-to-Peer Lending

Journal of Business Ethics 170 (2):375-400 (2021)


Based on a unique data set on US direct microloans, we study the funding determinants of interest-free peer-to-peer crowdlending aimed at borrowers in the US. By performing logistic regressions on funding success and Tobit regressions on the reversed funding time, the existence of a social underwriting by a third-party trustee and information in the description texts fostering the investors’ trust are shown to be the main predictors of successful funding. Regarding social impact, the possibility to empower women and groups of borrowers appeals to the investors, whereas empowerment of the family or community beyond the borrowers themselves appears to remain unappreciated. When examining the vulnerability of the borrowers as a predictor, the results manifest differences amongst the attitudes of the investors towards social impact. In the subsample of non-endorsed loans, the investors appear to prefer to support borrowers with an immigration background. In contrast, this is not the case with endorsed loans.

Download options


    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 72,766

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library


Added to PP

10 (#907,205)

6 months
1 (#386,989)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Similar books and articles

The Principles and Practices of Peer Review.Ronald N. Kostoff - 1997 - Science and Engineering Ethics 3 (1):19-34.
Commensuration Bias in Peer Review.Carole J. Lee - 2015 - Philosophy of Science 82 (5):1272-1283,.
Is Peer Review a Good Idea?Remco Heesen & Liam Kofi Bright - 2021 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 72 (3):635-663.
Bias in Peer Review.Carole J. Lee, Cassidy R. Sugimoto, Guo Zhang & Blaise Cronin - 2013 - Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 64 (1):2-17.
Peer Review: Selecting the Best Science. [REVIEW]Wendy Baldwin & Belinda Seto - 1997 - Science and Engineering Ethics 3 (1):11-17.
Understanding Peer to Peer as a Relational Dynamics.Michel Bauwens - 2011 - International Review of Information Ethics 15:41-51.
Peer Review: A Critical Inquiry.David Shatz - 2004 - Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
Why Be My Colleague’s Keeper? Moral Justifications for Peer Review.Joe Cain - 1999 - Science and Engineering Ethics 5 (4):531-540.
The Ethics of Peer Review in Bioethics.David Wendler & Franklin Miller - 2014 - Journal of Medical Ethics 40 (10):697-701.