Twenty‐five years of consumer bankruptcy in continental Europe: internalizing negative externalities and humanizing justice in Denmark
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This paper explores the problems and processes that led to the birth of consumer bankruptcy in continental Europe, a process that began in Denmark in January 1972 and culminated with the adoption of the Danish consumer debt adjustment act, Gældssaneringslov, on 9 May 1984. While this law is often described in primarily humanitarian terms, in the sense of offering a respite to “hopelessly indebted” individuals, both the motivation for the law and its intended scope were not simply accretions on an already multi‐layered welfare system. Instead, the law was designed primarily as a pragmatic response to economically wasteful collections activities that imposed negative externalities on debtors, creditors, and especially Danish society and state coffers; the law was intended to force creditors to internalize (or eliminate) these externalities with respect to all debtors unable to pay their debts within a reasonable period of 5 years. The paper also examines the growing pains of this new system. The law originally left significant administrative discretion to judges, which produced vast disparities in treatment of cases in different regions of the country. Ultimately, a reform implemented in October 2005 made the system more accessible, more unitary throughout the country, and more humane. The effects of this reform are already visible in statistical observations of the system, though significant regional variations persist. Given the striking coincidence in timing, this paper also offers brief comparative comments on the parallel design—but very different effect—of the most significant reform of the US consumer bankruptcy law, also effective in October 2005. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".