IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/buhirw/v85y2011i03p499-528_00.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Institutional Foundations of Personal Finance: Innovation in U.S. Savings Banks, 1880s–1920s

Author

Listed:
  • Wadhwani, R. Daniel

Abstract

The system of personal finance that developed in the United States was more fragmented than comparative arrangements in most industrializing countries, where savings banks had become large, diversified financial institutions. The federalist political structure of the U.S., combined with lobbying by existing intermediaries, inhibited the establishment of a centralized public provider of financial services for households such as emerged elsewhere. Moreover, the United States did not develop strong, diversified savings institutions at the local level, due in part to regulations that stifled innovation by savings banks and in part to the risk-averse organizational culture of the banks themselves. These factors enabled the proliferation of specialized intermediaries that aggressively marketed new financial services to households and facilitated the growth of new patterns of financial behavior among ordinary Americans.

Suggested Citation

  • Wadhwani, R. Daniel, 2011. "The Institutional Foundations of Personal Finance: Innovation in U.S. Savings Banks, 1880s–1920s," Business History Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 85(3), pages 499-528, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:cup:buhirw:v:85:y:2011:i:03:p:499-528_00
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S000768051100078X/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. van der Heide, Arjen & Kohl, Sebastian, 2022. "Private insurance, public welfare, and financial markets: Alpine and Maritime countries in comparative-historical perspective," MPIfG Discussion Paper 22/4, Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:buhirw:v:85:y:2011:i:03:p:499-528_00. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/bhr .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.