Review of Business and Economics Studies, 2017, том 5, № 2

Review of  
Business and 
Economics  
Studies

EDITOR-IN-CHIEF
Prof. Alexander Ilyinsky
Dean, International Finance Faculty, 
Financial University, Moscow, Russia
ailyinsky@fa.ru 

EXECUTIVE EDITOR
Dr. Zbigniew Mierzwa

EDITORIAL BOARD

Dr. Mark Aleksanyan
Adam Smith Business School, 
The Business School, University 
of Glasgow, UK

Prof. Edoardo Croci
Research Director, IEFE Centre for 
Research on Energy and Environmental 
Economics and Policy, Università 
Bocconi, Italy

Prof. Moorad Choudhry
Dept.of Mathematical Sciences, Brunel 
University, UK

Prof. David Dickinson 
Department of Economics, Birmingham 
Business School, University of 
Birmingham, UK

Prof. Chien-Te Fan
Institute of Law for Science and 
Technology, National Tsing Hua 
University, Taiwan

Prof. Wing M. Fok
Director, Asia Business Studies, College 
of Business, Loyola University New 
Orleans, USA

Prof. Konstantin P. Gluschenko
Faculty of Economics, Novosibirsk State 
University, Russia

Prof. George E. Halkos
Associate Editor in Environment and 
Development Economics, Cambridge 
University Press; Director of Operations 
Research Laboratory, University of 
Thessaly, Greece

Dr. Christopher A. Hartwell
President, CASE — Center for Social and 
Economic Research, Warsaw, Poland

Prof. S. Jaimungal
Associate Chair of Graduate 
Studies, Dept. Statistical Sciences 
& Mathematical Finance Program, 
University of Toronto, Canada

Prof. Bartlomiej Kaminski
University of Maryland, USA; 

Rzeszow University of Information 
Technology and Management,  
Poland

Prof. Vladimir Kvint 
Chair of Financial Strategy, Moscow 
School of Economics, Moscow State 
University, Russia

Prof. Alexander Melnikov 
Department of Mathematical and 
Statistical Sciences, University of 
Alberta, Canada

Prof. George Kleiner
Deputy Director, Central Economics and 
Mathematics Institute, Russian Academy 
of Sciences, Russia

Prof. Kwok Kwong
Director, Asian Pacific Business 
Institute, California State University,  
Los Angeles, USA

Prof. Dimitrios Mavrakis
Director, Energy Policy and 
Development Centre, National and 
Kapodistrian University of Athens, 
Greece

Prof. Steve McGuire
Director, Entrepreneurship Institute, 
California State University,  
Los Angeles, USA

Prof. Rustem Nureev
Сhairman for Research of the 
Department of Economic Theory, 
Financial University, Russia

Dr. Oleg V. Pavlov
Associate Professor of Economics and 
System Dynamics, Department of Social 
Science and Policy Studies, Worcester 
Polytechnic Institute, USA

Prof. Boris Porfiriev
Deputy Director, Institute of Economic 
Forecasting, Russian Academy of 
Sciences, Russia

Prof. Svetlozar T. Rachev
Professor of Finance, College of 
Business, Stony Brook University, USA

Prof. Boris Rubtsov
Deputy chairman of Department  
of financial markets and banks for R&D, 
Financial University, Russia

Dr. Minghao Shen
Dean, Center for Cantonese Merchants 
Research, Guangdong University of 
Foreign Studies, China

Prof. Dmitry Sorokin
Chairman for Research, Financial 
University, Russia

Prof. Robert L. Tang
Vice Chancellor for Academic, De La 
Salle College of Saint Benilde, Manila, 
The Philippines

Dr. Dimitrios Tsomocos 
Saïd Business School, Fellow in 
Management, University of Oxford; 
Senior Research Associate, Financial 
Markets Group, London School 
of Economics, UK

Prof. Sun Xiaoqin
Dean, Graduate School of Business, 
Guangdong University of Foreign 
Studies, China

REVIEW OF BUSINESS 
AND ECONOMICS STUDIES 
(ROBES) is the quarterly peerreviewed scholarly journal published 
by the Financial University under 
the Government of Russian 
Federation, Moscow. Journal’s 
mission is to provide scientific 
perspective on wide range of topical 
economic and business subjects.

CONTACT INFORMATION
Financial University
Leningradsky prospekt, 53,  
office 5.6
123995 Moscow
Russian Federation
Telephone: +7 (499) 943-98-02
Website: www.robes.fa.ru

AUTHOR INQUIRIES
Inquiries relating to the 
submission of articles can be sent 
by electronic mail to robes@fa.ru.

COPYRIGHT AND PHOTOCOPYING 
© 2017 Review of Business and 
Economics Studies. All rights 
reserved. No part of this publication 
may be reproduced, stored 
or transmitted in any form or by any 
means without the prior permission 
in writing from the copyright holder. 
Single photocopies of articles may 
be made for personal use as allowed 
by national copyright laws. 
ISSN 2308-944X

Вестник 
исследований 
бизнеса  
и экономики

ГЛАВНЫЙ РЕДАКТОР
А.И. Ильинский, профессор, декан 
Международного финансо вого факультета Финансового университета 

ВЫПУСКАЮЩИЙ РЕДАКТОР
Збигнев Межва, д-р экон. наук

РЕДАКЦИОННЫЙ СОВЕТ

М.М. Алексанян, профессор Бизнесшколы им. Адама Смита, Университет 
Глазго (Великобритания)

К. Вонг, профессор, директор Института азиатско-тихоокеанского бизнеса 
Университета штата Калифорния, 
Лос-Анджелес (США)

К.П. Глущенко, профессор экономического факультета Новосибирского 
госуниверситета

С. Джеимангал, профессор Департамента статистики и математических финансов Университета Торонто 
(Канада)

Д. Дикинсон, профессор Департамента экономики Бирмингемской бизнесшколы, Бирмингемский университет 
(Великобритания)

Б. Каминский, профессор, 
Мэрилендский университет (США); 
Университет информационных 
технологий и менеджмента в Жешуве 
(Польша)

В.Л. Квинт, заведующий кафедрой 
финансовой стратегии Московской 
школы экономики МГУ, профессор 
Школы бизнеса Лассальского университета (США)

Г. Б. Клейнер, профессор, член-корреспондент РАН, заместитель директора Центрального экономико-математического института РАН

Э. Крочи, профессор, директор по 
научной работе Центра исследований 
в области энергетики и экономики 
окружающей среды Университета 
Боккони (Италия)

Д. Мавракис, профессор, 
директор Центра политики 
и развития энергетики 
Национального университета  
Афин (Греция)

С. Макгвайр, профессор, директор Института предпринимательства 
Университета штата Калифорния, 
Лос-Анджелес (США)

А. Мельников, профессор  
Депар та мента математических 
и ста тистических исследований 
Университета провинции Альберта 
(Канада)

Р.М. Нуреев, профессор, научный 
руководитель Департамента экономической теории Финансового 
университета

О.В. Павлов, профессор  
Депар та мента по литологии 
и полити ческих исследований 
Ворчестерского политехнического 
института (США) 

Б.Н. Порфирьев, профессор,  
член-корреспондент РАН, заместитель директора Института 
народнохозяйственного прогнозирования РАН

С. Рачев, профессор Бизнес-кол леджа 
Университета Стони Брук (США) 

Б.Б. Рубцов, профессор, заместитель 
руководителя Департамента финансовых рынков и банков по НИР 
Финансового университета

Д.Е. Сорокин, профессор, членкорреспондент РАН, научный 
руководитель Финансового 
университета

Р. Тан, профессор, проректор 
Колледжа Де Ла Саль Св. Бенильды 
(Филиппины) 

Д. Тсомокос, Оксфордский университет, старший научный сотрудник 
Лондонской школы экономики  
(Великобритания)

Ч.Т. Фан, профессор, Институт 
права в области науки и технологии, 
национальный университет Цин Хуа 
(Тайвань)

В. Фок, профессор, директор по 
исследованиям азиатского бизнеса Бизнес-колледжа Университета 
Лойола (США)

Д.Е. Халкос, профессор, Университет 
Фессалии (Греция)

К.А. Хартвелл, президент Центра 
социальных и экономических исследований CASE (Польша)

М. Чудри, профессор, Университет 
Брунеля (Великобритания)

Сун Цяокин, профессор, декан Высшей школы бизнеса Гуандунского 
университета зарубежных исследований (КНР)

М. Шен, декан Центра кантонских 
рыночных исследований Гуандунского университета (КНР)

Редакция научных журналов 
Финансового университета
123995, Москва, ГСП-5,  
Ленинградский пр-т, 53,  
комн. 5.6
Тел. 8 (499) 943-98-02.
Интернет: www.robes.fa.ru.

Журнал “Review of Business and 
Economics Studies” («Вест ник 
исследований бизнеса и экономики») зарегистрирован в Федеральной службе по надзору в 
сфере связи, информационных 
технологий и массовых коммуникаций 15 сентября 2016 г. 
Свидетельство о регистрации 
ПИ № ФС77-67072. 

Подписано в печать: 07.06.2017. 
Формат 60 × 84 1/8. 
Заказ № 660 от 07.06.2017. 
Отпечатано в ООП Издательства 
Финуниверситета  
(Ленинградский проспект, д. 49).
16+

CONTENTS

Socio-Psychological Peculiarities and Level of Financial Literacy of Russian 

Debtors

Maria A. Gagarina, Anna A. Shantseva . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5

Gold, Dollar, International Trade and Monetary Integration in Us Foreign 

Policy: from the Interwar Years Through the Height of Bretton Woods

Simone Selva . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23

Price Theory of Monies, from Global History

Dennis O. Flynn  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .36

No More Blood for Oil. How Could EU Help?

Tseng Li Ming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .47

“Brexit”: What to Expect?

Elizaveta A. Kharina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .58

Understanding How Value Added Tax (Vat) is Applied in the Democratic 

Republic of Congo

Tshibola Aimee Murphie Lubeshi  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .62

The Monetary System of the Luso-Brazilian Empire: the Changing Role 

of the ‘Provincial’ Currency in the 17th and 18th Centuries

Fernando Cerqueira Lima, Rita Martins de Sousa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .68

Review of  
Business and  
Economics  
Studies

Volume 5, Number 2, 2017

Вестник 
исследований 
бизнеса  
и экономики

№ 2, 2017

CОДЕРЖАНИЕ

Социально-психологические особенности и уровень финансовой 

грамотности должников

Гагарина М. А., Шанцева А. А. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Золото, доллар, международная торговля и валютная интеграция 

во внешней политике США: от послевоенных лет через Бреттон-Вудское 

соглашение

Симон Сельва  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Теория цены денег. Из всеобщей истории

Денис О. Флинн . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Нет нефти ценой крови. Как Евросоюз может помочь?

Тсенг Ли Минг . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

Брексит: что следует ожидать?

Харина Елизавета Алексеевна . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

Вопросы применения НДС в Демократической Республике Конго

Тчибола Эйми Мyрфи Лyбеши . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

Монетарная система Португальско-Бразильской империи: меняющаяся 

роль «провинциальной» денежной системы в XVII и XVIII веках

Фернандо Серкуеира Лима, Рита Мартинс де Соуса . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

Review of Business and Economics Studies  
 
Volume 5, Number 2, 2017

Socio-Psychological Peculiarities and Level 
of Financial Literacy of Russian Debtors

Maria A. Gagarina
PhD, Associate professor
Department of Human Resource Management
Financial University
Moscow, Russia
MGagarina@fa.ru; MGagarina224@gmail.com

Anna A. Shantseva
student
International Finance Faculty
Financial University
Moscow, Russia
Anna.Shantseva@gmail.com

Abstract. This article is devoted to investigation of role of financial literacy and socio-psychological 
factors in borrowing and debt behavior. Topicality of the problem is caused by necessity to understand 
the causes, except economic, leading to delays in debt repayment and therefore increasing debt 
burden. This work presents the basic theoretical approaches to the problem of debtors, debt 
behavior concepts and connections between debt behavior, financial literacy, social and demographic 
characteristics and personality traits in accordance with the results of international research. Results 
of empirical investigation are presented, which reflect differences in financial literacy and sociopsychological characteristics of non-borrowers, borrowers and debtors. In conclusion, debtors do not 
differ from borrowers, who pay their bills in due course, by social and demographic characteristics, 
but there is a significant difference in their psychological characteristics. Debtors demonstrate higher 
tolerance to debts and irrationality in debt behavior and lower level of conscientiousness than nonborrowers and borrowers/payers. Non-borrowers do not differ significantly from borrowers/payers in 
psychological characteristics but differ significantly from them in socio-demographic characteristics 
and financial literacy. Results got by the authors are in agreement with the data obtained in Russian 
and foreign scientific researches.
Keywords: debtor; borrower; borrowing; debt behavior; debt repayment; financial literacy; debt 
literacy; socio-psychological characteristics; big five personality traits; locus of control; debt 
attitudes.

Социально-психологические особенности и уровень 
финансовой грамотности должников

Гагарина М. А.
кандидат психологических наук, доцент
Кафедра «Управление персоналом и психология»
Финансовый университет
Москва, Россия
MGagarina@fa.ru; MGagarina224@gmail.com

Review of Business and Economics Studies  
 
Volume 5, Number 2, 2017

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We would like to thank the Russian Foundation for 
Humanities for supporting this research through grant 
15–06–10710

INTRODUCTION

Relevance of the study

The urgency of studying the role of financial literacy and socio-psychological characteristics 
in debt behavior is underpinned by the growing 
indebtedness of the population and the need to 
determine the factors that influence its dynamics. 
The problem of borrowing and debt is not fully 
investigated on Russian sample because of two 
reasons: late emergency of credit card market 
and the wide-spread habit of borrowing from individuals (relatives and friends) which is difficult 
to study objectively. These socio-economic and 
cultural peculiarities of borrowing in our country 
do not let us simply use foreign scientific experience in debt behavior. In general, the analysis 
of debt behavior should take into account a va
riety of factors, such as the financial ability to 
meet one’s debt obligations, readiness and desire 
to perform, understanding of the mechanisms of 
debt formation, as well as individual characteristics such as integrity, conscientiousness, responsibility. Another important aspect is a person’s 
ability to see the cause-and-effect relationships 
between their actions and what is happening in 
their life.
Knowing what factors play a leading role in the 
transition from borrowing to “bad debt” behavior 
will help to develop a more effective system of 
measures to prevent the growth of debt among 
the population in the future.
Decisions on borrowing call for knowledge of 
certain financial products and familiarity with 
the fundamentals of financial calculations. There 
is good reason to believe that the higher the level 
of financial literacy, the more rational decisions, 
including the ones on borrowing, the respondents 
will take. Together with the ability to limit oneself and direct available funds to repay debt, these 
characteristics can be the basis of effective debt 
management. That is, we assume the following: 

Шанцева А. А.
студентка Международного финансового факультета Финансовый университет
Москва, Россия
Anna.Shantseva@gmail.com

Аннотация. Данная статья посвящена исследованию роли уровня финансовой грамотности и социальнопсихологических факторов в заимствующем и долговом поведении. Актуальность темы исследования 
обусловлена необходимостью понимания причин, помимо сугубо экономических, побуждающих лиц 
к несвоевременному погашению задолженности и приводящих к росту долгового бремени. В работе 
проанализированы основные теоретические подходы к определению должников и долгового поведения, 
показана связь долгового поведения с психологическими характеристиками респондентов и их 
уровнем финансовой грамотности по результатам зарубежных исследований. На основании результатов 
эмпирического исследования представлены различия по социально-психологическим характеристикам 
и уровню финансовой грамотности у лиц, не имеющих займов, заемщиков, не имеющих 
задолженности, и должников. Сделан вывод, что должники не отличаются от заемщиков, своевременно 
осуществляющих платежи по социальным и демографическим характеристикам, но отличаются от них по 
психологическим характеристикам. Должники, по сравнению с плательщиками и незаемщиками, имеют 
более нерациональное долговое поведение и более низкие показатели избегания долгов, а также более 
низкий уровень сознательности. Лица, не имеющие опыта заимствования, не отличаются от заемщиковплательщиков по психологическим характеристикам, но отличаются по социально-демографическим 
характеристикам и по финансовой грамотности. Полученные авторами результаты согласуются 
с данными других отечественных и зарубежных научных исследований.
Ключевые слова: должник; заемщик; заимствующее поведение; долговое поведение; финансовая 
грамотность; долговая грамотность; социально-психологические особенности; большая пятерка 
личностных черт; локус контроля; долговые преставления.

Review of Business and Economics Studies  
 
Volume 5, Number 2, 2017

in order not to become bad debtor, it is necessary 
to (1) gain a deep understanding of what a loan is 
and how it is to be paid; (2) be able to relate the 
resources available to those that would be required 
to repay the debt and (3) have certain psychological 
characteristics, such as emotional stability, conscientiousness, responsibility and internality for 
action to repay the loan. It is worth emphasizing 
that the problem calls for a systematic, multi-factor 
approach. Our previous studies (Gagarina, 2015; 
Smurygina, Gagarina 2016) have shown that the 
knowledge of the basic concept like «credit» and 
«loan interest» does not guarantee in itself the ability to apply this knowledge in practice and make 
the right decisions, like the ones on the order of 
loan repayment in case of multiple debts [1; 24 33]. 
However, it goes without saying that the absence 
of such knowledge adversely affects the decision.

Background

We start our review from the terms which are 
mentioned in the heading of the article and make 
an overview of the developments that already exist in the field of debt behavior.
Financial literacy is defined as “a combination of 
awareness, knowledge, skill, attitude and behavior 
necessary to make sound financial decisions and 
ultimately achieve individual financial wellbeing” (Organization for Economic Co-operation and 
Development (OECD)/International Network on 
Financial Education (INFE), 2012). In its projects 
aimed at improving national strategies for financial 
education, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) recommends to 
consider the study of financial literacy as a multistep process that depends on financial, economic 
and social circumstances of people/households. 
The initial stage involves the acquaintance with 
such basic concepts as the characteristics and use 
of financial products, and then proceeds to more 
complex steps like the comprehension of financial 
concepts and development of skills and attitudes 
necessary for managing personal finances in the 
short and long term. As a result, all stages of development of financial literacy suggest positive 
changes in the behavioral patterns of citizens and 
households.
Research by Lusardi & Tufano (2009) suggests 
that households with low level of financial literacy 
tend to borrow money at a higher interest rate. 

They are also less likely to plan out their retirement 
savings, have a lower propensity to save, and they 
prone to experience difficulties with payment of 
mortgage loans [30].
It is not so easy to define “debt” and “debtors”. 
According to Dronova (2015), in Russian language 
the word “debt” has at least two different meanings: 
debt as something borrowed and obligated to be 
returned back (usually in terms goods or money), 
as synonym to “indebtedness” and “a loan” it can 
be met in manuscripts in XII–XIII century; and 
debt as a moral obligation (like sacred duty, filial duty or duty to the motherland), which can be 
seen in ancient text in XVI century [4]. Because 
a single word “debt” is used for both loans and 
dues, then while speaking about “debt behavior” 
we have to clarify that we actually mean borrowing. Borrowing behavior can be viewed in different 
ways. Firstly, it can be divided into institutional 
and non-institutional borrowing —  that is, borrowing from an organization or from an individual. 
This classification is often used in sociological 
research, for example, in the PhD thesis A. A. Dikiy 
(2012) and A. I. Faizullina (2007) [3; 6]. Meanwhile, 
proponents of this approach refer to this type of 
borrowing behavior as “debt behavior”. Necessity 
to distinguish between “debt” and “credit” in also 
of great concern. That is borrowing can be divided 
in accordance with the degree of repayment: those 
authors differentiate between loans (credit), outstanding debt (which is often treated as doubtful 
debt) and bad (distressed) debts. In the first case, 
we are talking about loans that can be repaid on 
time and in full; in the second case, there is a late 
payment on a loan or a payment is made not in 
full; and in the third case we are dealing with debt 
that remains unpaid because of the large size of 
the debt or because the debtor does not intend to 
pay it. These categories are applied in the works 
of Lea, S.E.G., P. Webley & R. M. Levine (1993), and 
Lea, S. E. G., Webley, P. & Walker, C.M. (1995) [27; 
28]. Consequently, we can consider “credit behavior” 
(associated with borrowing in general and credit 
paid in time and in full) and “debt behavior” (associated with debt outstanding past due date and 
bad debt). In these studies, as well as in some other 
ones, debt is seen as a forced inability to make a 
payment that needs to be made, while credit is 
a deferred payment that will be made in accordance with the contract between the borrower and 
lender. In accordance with this approach to debt, 

Review of Business and Economics Studies  
 
Volume 5, Number 2, 2017

we distinguish among the borrowers those who 
are “non-debtors”, “minor debtors” and “serious 
debtors” (Lea, S. E. G., Webley, P. & Walker, C.M. 
(1995)) [28].
Thus, we face the question: who should be kept 
in mind by the term “debtor”? Firstly, it was proved 
by Dearden, C., Goode J., Whitfield, G. & Cox, L. 
(2010) that economists and ordinary people understand this in different ways [15, p. 11]. Objective 
measures are those derived from legal and statistical measures and often use quantitative indicators, 
while subjective definitions are more qualitative 
and self-declared by nature. Secondly, one can be 
a debtor, but not a borrower —  how are we to deal 
with this case?
After analyzing the characteristics of the respondents described in various English-language 
articles, the title of which included the words “debt”, 
“debt behavior” and “indebtedness”, we found out 
that Achtziger, A., Hubert, M., Kenning, P., Raab, 
G. & Reisch, L. (2015); Dunn, L. F. & Mirzaie, I. A. 
(2011); Harrison, N., Agnew, S. & Serido, J. (2015); 
Jenkins, R., Bhugra, D., Bebbington, P., Brugha, T., 
Farrell, M., Coid, J. Fryers, T., Weich, S., Singleton, 
N. & Meltzer, H. (2008) apply the term “debtor” to 
people who just have mortgages, credit cards, auto 
loans and education loans [7; 18; 22; 25]; Brown, 
Taylor, Price (2005) use these works interchangeably [12] and Gathergood, J. (2012); Gathergood, J. 
& Weber J. (2014); Lusardi, A., and Tufano, P. (2009) 
apply debt to those who have late payments and 
arrears on loans [20; 19; 30]. To talk about bad 
debts, in addition to the term “problem debt” that 
reflects the inability and/or unwillingness to repay 
the loan or pay for goods and services on time and 
in full used in Jones, L.E., Loibl, C. & Tennyson, S. 
(2015)) [26], another term (not used in Russian 
language) “over-indebtedness”, which implies overdue loans and a subjective definition of borrowing 
as conjugate with financial problems applied in 
works of Dunn, L. F. & Mirzaie, I. A. (2011) and 
Harrison, N., Agnew, S. & Serido, J. (2015) [18, 22].
All in all, in our survey, we distinguished between borrowers/payers (those having loan of any 
type or borrowing from individuals) and debtors 
(borrowers with overdue loans and missed payments) and non-borrows.
Debt behavior and borrowing behavior can be 
analyzed with a focus on their causes. That type of 
works is devoted to the search of predictors of debt 
behavior, which include, for instance, self-control 

and time perspective, like in the study by Webley & Nyhus (2001) [34]. However, it is not always 
possible to distinguish a sound cause-and-effect 
relationship between individual characteristics 
and debt accumulation. For example, Gathergood’s 
works (2012) state that a low level of self-control 
leads to higher debt, as respondents with weak selfcontrol often use short-term but expensive loans, 
and the increase in debt is due to low self-control, 
not financial literacy [20]. Meanwhile, Achtziger, A., 
Hubert, M., Kenning, P., Raab, G. & Reisch, L. argue 
in their research (2015) that the link between low 
self-control and a high level of debt is mediated, and 
it is related to the inability (or reduced ability) to 
monitor and control the need to make purchases [7].
Due to the inability to detect cause-and-effect 
relationships, many works are basically devoted to 
identification of various characteristics (personal, 
behavioral, and so on) of debtors and their differences from borrowers and from people who don’t 
borrow at all.
Relatively well developed is the problem of the 
connection between attitudes and debt behaviors. 
In their work, Davies, E., Lea, S. E. G. (1995) discovered the relationship between pro- and anti-debt 
attitudes in students with the amounts of debt 
outstanding and their readiness to spend money 
on maintaining certain living standards. Pro-debt 
attitudes turned out to be positively correlated 
with the larger amounts of arrears [14]. Besides, 
there are studies that confirm the link between 
personality traits and financial decision-making 
such as unsecure debt and financial assets. Brown, S. 
& Taylor (2014) have shown that extraversion and 
agreeableness have a significant positive correlation 
with the amount of debt, while conscientiousness 
has a negative correlation with it. The only personality trait that does not give any meaningful 
correlation neither with the size of the debt, nor 
with the ownership of assets, is neuroticism [11]. 
These conclusions contradict the results obtained 
by other researchers; according to Webley & Nyhus 
(2001), for example, emotional instability is a positive predictor of debt [34].
Many studies focus on the (generally negative) 
influence of debts on physical and mental health 
of debtors. A number of epidemiological studies, 
like the ones by Gathergood (2012) or Hojman et 
al. (2013) [20; 23], have shown that the existence 
of outstanding debt is a significant predictor of 
depression.

Review of Business and Economics Studies  
 
Volume 5, Number 2, 2017

It goes without saying that debt behavior is 
determined not only by personal traits or attitudes, 
but also by the knowledge and understanding of 
economic processes and phenomena —  that is, by 
the level of financial literacy, which was defined 
at the beginning of this article. This fact is proved 
by a number of empirical studies. The works by 
Disney & Gathergood (2013) show the role that 
financial literacy plays in the formation of one’s 
credit portfolio. To assess the level financial literacy 
of the respondents, the latter were asked three 
questions: (1) a simple question on the calculation 
of interest, (2) a question on the understanding 
of the accumulation of interest on a loan and (3) 
the question related to the minimum payment. In 
addition, two more features were estimated: the 
level of self-consciousness in relation to financial 
literacy and the behavior aimed at improving it. The 
respondents who take consumer loans demonstrate 
a lower level of financial literacy than those who 
do not borrow at all. Besides, borrowers with a low 
level of financial literacy tend to take more expensive loans, as compared with borrowers with a high 
level of financial literacy. Despite the awareness 
of their incompetence in financial matters, people 
with a low level of financial literacy are less willing 
to attempt to improve their understanding of the 
credit market —  for example, to read the financial 
press or receive information about new, favorable 
loan offers [17].
The results of J. Gathergood’s research (2012) 
provide convincing evidence that the lack of selfcontrol and a low level of financial literacy are 
positively correlated with defaults on consumer 
loans and self-reports of excessive debt burden. 
However, the analysis showed that the lack of selfcontrol plays a greater role as the explanation of 
over-indebtedness, as compared to the financial 
literacy [20]. It should be noted, however, that the 
increase in the level of financial literacy can lead 
to ambiguous consequences; for example, Brown, 
M., Grigsby, J., van der Klaauw, W., Wen, J. & Zafar, 
B. (2014) studied the effect of taking courses in 
finance on the future indebtedness. It turned out 
that studying mathematics and improving financial 
literacy does reduce the negative consequences 
such as bankruptcy and debt accumulation, but at 
the same time it also stimulates participation in the 
debt market and leads to an increase in the number 
of loans, which in turn can result in negative consequences in the future [10]. In addition, Gather
good, J. & Weber J. (2014) revealed the relationship 
between the high level of financial literacy and the 
so-called “co-holding” —  simultaneous ownership 
of expensive credits and illiquid deposit accounts. 
According to the information from their article, 
12% of all households are “co-holders”. The average 
amount they owe to the bank is £3,800 and they 
make regular payments to pay down the borrowed 
amount and the interest set by the bank, in spite 
of having enough assets to cover all their credits 
at once. Co-holders generally have a higher level 
of financial literacy, their income is above average, and they also tend to be well educated. It was 
established that co-holding is linked to impulsive 
purchases and is often used as a way to control 
one’s spending, that is, as coping strategy [19].
So, what are the key factors that determine the 
level of financial literacy? Grohmann, A., Kouwenberg, R. & Menkhoff, L. (2015) distinguish three 
main predicators: family, school and work. In their 
paper, the authors combined two directions of research —  the study of financial socialization, defining the role of a child’s experience in the formation 
of financial knowledge and behavior, and studies on 
financial literacy, describing the impact of financial 
literacy on the financial behavior of adults [21]. 
Thus, financial literacy serves as a link between 
the variables describing childhood experiences 
and adult economic behavior. Five scales serve 
as the childhood experience variables: parental 
education, financial socialization provided by parents, Economics lessons taught at the school, the 
quality of education, and financial socialization 
through experience of dealing with money in life 
or at work. To assess the level of financial literacy 
the researchers used the method developed by 
Lusardi & Mitchell —  an assessment tool comprising three questions concerning the basic financial 
concepts: interest rates, inflation and diversification [30]. The researchers also used the number 
of available types of financial assets (except for 
savings accounts, which all respondents had) as 
an indicator of effective financial decision-making. 
The results showed two main directions to explain 
the effect of childhood experience on the level of 
financial literacy of adults. The first is the financial 
socialization provided by parents through teaching their kids to manage their budget and through 
encouraging savings behavior, which directly leads 
to improvement of financial literacy. In addition, 
provision of financial socialization of children by 

Review of Business and Economics Studies  
 
Volume 5, Number 2, 2017

parents leads to the development of quantitative 
thinking (numeracy) and thus indirectly improves 
financial literacy. The second channel used to explain the role of the childhood experience in the 
formation of financial literacy is learning at school. 
In this case, the study of economics at school and a 
higher quality of education have an indirect effect 
on developing numeracy and thereby also contribute to improving financial literacy. The results 
confirmed that a higher level of financial literacy is 
associated with more efficient financial solutions.

METHODS
The aim of our study was to identify the relationship between social and psychological characteristics and the level of financial literacy on the one 
hand, and borrowing and debt behavior of Russian 
people on the other. Approximately 252 respondents aged from 18 to 67 took part in assessment; 
M=38,0 SD10,8; 158 women, 92 men (others not 
identified). In our survey we used snowball sampling. It is a non-probability sampling technique 
where existing study subjects recruit future subjects from among their acquaintances.
The survey itself is comprised of approximately 
130 questions.
The hypothesis of this study, as has been described above, is that the differences between nonborrowers, borrowers fulfilling their obligations 
in full, and debtors come in three flavors: firstly, 
the willingness to borrow money and tolerance 
for the presence of loan; secondly, theoretical 
understanding of what a loan is and how it is to be 
paid, as well as the ability to match the available 
resources with one’s needs (financial and debt 
literacy); and, thirdly, there are certain psychological characteristics —  such as emotional stability, 
awareness, responsibility and internality —  which 
enable borrowers to take action to repay the loan.
To check the first part of hypothesis we included a block of questions to gather information 
about gender, age, level of education, marital status, number of children, experience of borrowing 
and types of borrowing (if any) in the past, existence of outstanding loans at the moment, presence of arrears of payments, expectations about 
one’s own solvency within the next year and the 
willingness to take advantage of borrowing in 
microfinance institutions.
The second block included questions on financial (particularly debt) literacy. To determine 

the level of financial literacy, we used the method described in the works of Lusardi & Tufano 
(2009) and Disney & Gathergood (2012) [20; 30]. 
The questions were translated into Russian and 
adapted: the amount shown in native currency 
and the interest rates were chosen in accordance 
with the real-life rates charged by Russian banks. 
Thus, the block of questions for assessing financial 
literacy included three questions that reveal one’s 
understanding of the basic concepts:
I. “Marina has a credit card debt in the amount 
of 10,000 rubles; the annual interest rate is 15% 
per year. If she does not make payments to cover 
the arrears, what will be the amount she owes 
in 1 year, taking into account the interest rate? 
(Penalties and fines are excluded)”
A) 8,500 rubles; B) 10,000 rubles; C) 11,500 
rubles; D)15,000 rubles; E) I don’t know
II. “Sergei has a credit card debt in the amount 
of 10,000 rubles; the annual interest rate is 20% 
per year. If he does not make payments to cover 
the arrears, how many years will it take for his 
debt to double?”
A) Less than 5 years; B) from 5 to 10 years; C) 
more than 10 years; D) I don’t know
III. “David has a credit card debt in the amount 
of 30,000 rubles; the annual interest rate is 12% 
per year (1% per month). He pays 300 rubles every 
month to cover the arrears, eliminating penalties 
and additional fees for using the card. How long 
will it take David to repay the debt in full under 
these conditions?”
A) Less than 5 years; B) from 5 to 10 years; C) 
more than 10 years; D) He won’t repay the loan; 
E) I don’t know
Two additional questions to clarify individual 
preferences in debt repayment were similar to 
questions described in Amar, Ariely, Ayal (2011) 
[8]: “3,000 rubles task” and “30,000 rubles task”. 
“3,000 rubles task”. Respondents were asked to 
imagine that they have two credit card accounts: 
a MasterCard account with a 3,000 rubles balance 
and a 19% annual percentage rate (APR), and a 
Visa account with a 30,000 rubles balance and a 
24% APR. If they had just received either a 3,000 
rubles or a 30,000 rubles bonus which account 
they would repay completely or how much would 
they pay on each account? Task was a multiplechoice test: there were three possible answers. 
In the “3,000 rubles task” the answers were: A) 
use all of the money (3,000 rubles) to pay down 

Review of Business and Economics Studies  
 
Volume 5, Number 2, 2017

the debt of 3,000 rubles, B) use all of the money 
to pay down the debt of 30,000 rubles, C) divide 
the sum between the arrays. In the “30,000 rubles 
task” the options were: A) repay the 3,000 rub. 
debt in full; B) repay the 30,000 rub. debt in full, 
C) divide the money between the arrears, but not 
in the proportion of 3,000 rub. and 27,000 rub.”
The third block contains psychodiagnostic techniques: “Debt behavior questionnaire by M. A. Gagarina”, “Locus of control” method and “The Big 
Five personality traits” technique. Because our 
main focus were psychological traits we included 
full versions of questionnaires. Debt behavior questionnaire by M. A. Gagarina comprises 30 questions which give us five scales (alpha Cronbach 
>= 0,75): Debt avoidance, Rational debt behavior, 
Debt attitudes and Internality in debt. Locus of 
control questionnaire (in Russian) comprises 44 
questions which give us 7 scales representing the 
level of internality in different spheres: general, 
achievements, failures, family relations, professional sphere, interpersonal relations and health. Big 
Five (in Russian) comprises 40 questions which give 
us 5 scales: Extraversion, Neuroticism, Openness to 
experience, Conscientiousness and Agreeableness.

EMPIRICAL RESULTS

Social and demographic characteristics

Sample characteristics are presented in Table 1.
All respondents are split into three groups (Variable “Group” in further analysis): Non-borrowers, 
Borrowers/payers, Debtors.
Non-borrowers —  are individuals who deny 
having loans from any institutions or individuals.
Borrowers/payers —  are individuals who have 
taken a loan from a bank or other organization or 
from an individual. We included word ‘payers’ to 
emphasize that they have no overdue loans (and 
did not have overdue debts in the past as well) and 
distinguish them from borrowers with delayed or 
missed payments and bad debts.
Debtors are individuals admitted that they had 
overdue loans or missed and delayed loan payments.
From Table 1 we can conclude that our typical 
respondent is a woman from 36 to 45 years old, 
married, having 2 children, with higher education 
and working in an organization.
The “non-borrowers” is mainly represented by 
individuals aged 18–25, with higher education, in 

most cases having no children and with a similar 
proportion of married and divorced respondents. 
In half of the cases the respondents are employed 
by organizations; the proportions of self-employed 
and unemployed are nearly equal.
Borrowers/payers tend to fall into the 36 to 
45-year-old category, with higher education, usually married and having two children, mostly being 
hired workers in organizations.
Debtors are mostly are mostly concentrated in 
the 36 to 45-year-old category, with higher education, usually married and having two children, 
employed by organizations. In comparison with 
two other groups, this category contains a higher 
proportion of men.
The most popular type of borrowing is consumer credit (73% of borrowing among payers 
and debtors), the next goes borrowing from relatives and friends (31%), then car loans, sometimes 
combined with consumer credit or borrowing from 
friends and relatives (22%) and after that comes 
mortgage (17%), followed by a combination of 
mortgage and other types of borrowing (13%) 
and the last are credit card (3%) and educational 
loan (1%).
No significant differences (Chi-square, p<0,050) 
were found among frequencies of each type of 
borrowing among Debtors and Payers.
One-way ANOVA was conducted to compare 
social and demographic characteristics of participants across Debtors, Non-borrowers and Payers. 
The independent variable (factor) is the Group, 
the dependent variables include Age, Sex, Marital status, Number of children and Employment 
status. To move from non-interval (qualitative) 
data to interval (quantitate) we used the dummy 
variable technique: we coded social and demographic characteristics in binary system (0 and 
1). The results are presented in Table 2 and they 
confirm the fact that there is a significant difference in social and demographic characteristics.
Summary statistics are presented in Table 3 
and show that there are significant differences in 
Age, Marital status, Number of children between 
at least two groups.
We continue the Post Hoc analysis (Turkey 
HSD for unequal sample) for scales with significant values to see which groups differ from one 
another. The results are presented in Tables 4–7.
Table 4 represents the results for the variable 
Age: there is a significant difference between the 

Review of Business and Economics Studies  
 
Volume 5, Number 2, 2017

Table 1. Sample characteristics

Non-borrowers
Borrowers/
payers
Debtors
General 
sample

N
89 (35%)
131 (52%)
31 (12%)
251

Female
57 (66%)
87 (66%)
14 (45%)
158 (63%)

Male
30 (34%)
44 (34%)
17 (55%)
91 (36%)

Not identified
2 (1%)
0
0
2 (1%)

18–25
42 (47%)
24 (18%)
8 (26%)
74 (30%)

26–35
21 (16%)
13 (15%)
8 (26%)
42 (16%)

36–45
26 (29%)
53 (40%)
11 (35%)
90 (36%)

46–55
7 (8%)
24 (18%)
3 (10%)
34 (14%)

Over 55
9 (7%)
1 (1%)
1 (3%)
11 (4%)

Two higher education or PhD
8 (8%)
23 (19%)
4 (13%)
35 (14%)

Higher education
71 (74%)
82 (66%)
19 (61%)
172 (69%)

Secondary (special) education
17 (18%)
19 (15%)
7 (23%)
44 (17%)

Married
48 (50%)
96 (79%)
21 (68%)
165 (66%)

Not married
41 (43%)
16 (13%)
4 (13%)
61 (25%)

Widow
0
1 (1%)
0
1 (<1%)

Divorced
7 (7%)
9 (8%)
5 16%)
21 (8%)

Married several times
0
0
1 (3%)
1 (<1%)

Not identified
0
2 (1%)
0
2 (1%)

Children: 0
42 (44%)
21 (17%)
10 (32%)
73 (29%)

Children: 1
11 (12%)
35 (28%)
4 (13%)
50 (20%)

Children: 2
35 (37%)
53 (43%)
14 (45%)
102 (41%)

Children: 3
6 (6%)
12 (10%)
2 (7%)
20 (8%)

Children: 4
1 (1%)
1 (1%)
0
2 (1%)

Children: 5
0
1 (1%)
1 (1%)
2 (1%)

Children: 6
0
1 (1%)
0
1 (<1%)

Employed in organization
50 (52%)
77 (62%)
17 (55%)
144 (57%)

Self-employed
21 (22%)
28 (23%)
6 (19%)
55 (22%)

Unemployed
24 (25%)
19 (15%)
7 (23%)
51 (20%)

Parental leave
0
0
1 (3%)
1 (<1%)

Type of borrowing

All groups
Chi-square
131 (81%)
31 (19%)
162

Comsumer credit
0,06
58 (45%)
15 (48%)
73 (46%)

Borrowing from individuals
0,16
26 (20%)
5 (16%)
31 (19%)

Car loan (car loan plus credit from a bank 
or an individual)
1,33
20(16%)
2 (6%)
22 (14%)

Mortgage
0,19
13 (10%)
4 (13%)
17 (11%)

Mortgage plus credit from bank or 
individual
2,75
8 (6%)
5 (16%)
13 (8%)

Credit card
0,71
3 (2%)
0
3 (2%)

Education loan
0,24
1 (<1%)
0
1 (<1%)