11 Borrowing money from the fringes: the problematic regulation of payday loans in Canada and the US
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Payday lending is a highly contested issue in North American society.The industry's association with claims of financial insecurity, over-indebtedness, and poverty encourage continuous discussions on its role in both consumer finance and social welfare.Policy decisions on how it should be regulated can significantly impact both harm and opportunity for individuals.This chapter examines the policies that have emerged to address payday lending in Canada and the US, arguing that this is ineffective policy.Both countries have adopted regulatory policy tools guided by ideas of responsible lending.However, policies have been built within an uncoordinated policy system, particularly between jurisdictions, which has led to an ineffective regulatory patchwork.This chapter argues that this framework is ineffective for two reasons.First, regulatory arbitrage undermines the efficacy of individual policies by creating gaps within each country, while also generating additional challenges for borrower financial literacy.Second, there is a disproportionate focus on regulation, with little systematic interest in policies encouraging the development of alternative financial solutions.These realities are more than abstract issues as they allow income and financially vulnerable borrowers to continue to be exposed to harm.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".