IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/restud/v92y2025i3p1661-1698..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Employer Credit Checks: Poverty Traps Versus Matching Efficiency

Author

Listed:
  • Dean Corbae
  • Andrew Glover

Abstract

We develop a framework to understand pre-employment credit screening as a signal from credit markets that alleviates adverse selection in labour markets. In our theory, people differ in both their propensity to default on debt and the profits they create for firms that employ them; in our calibrated economy, highly productive workers have a low default probability. This leads firms to create more jobs for those with good credit, which creates a poverty trap: an unemployed worker with poor credit has a low job finding rate, but cannot improve her credit without a job. This manifests as an endogenous loss in present-discounted wages that is typically taken as exogenous in quantitative models of consumer default. Banning employer credit checks eliminates the poverty trap, but pools job seekers and reduces matching efficiency: average unemployment duration rises by 2 days for high productivity workers and falls by 13 days for low-productivity workers.

Suggested Citation

  • Dean Corbae & Andrew Glover, 2025. "Employer Credit Checks: Poverty Traps Versus Matching Efficiency," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 92(3), pages 1661-1698.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:restud:v:92:y:2025:i:3:p:1661-1698.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/restud/rdae095
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    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:oup:restud:v:92:y:2025:i:3:p:1661-1698.. 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: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/restud .

    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.