Empirical Economics

, Volume 56, Issue 3, pp 1011–1037 | Cite as

Payday-loan bans: evidence of indirect effects on supply

  • Stefanie R. RamirezEmail author


In November 2008, Ohio enacted the Short-Term Loan Law which imposed a 28% APR on payday loans, effectively banning the industry. Using licensing records from 2006 to 2010, I examine if there are changes in the supply side of the pawnbroker, precious-metals, small-loan, and second-mortgage lending industries during periods when the ban is effective. Seemingly unrelated regression results show the ban increases the average county-level operating small-loan, second-mortgage, and pawnbroker licensees per million by 156, 43, and 97%, respectively.


Financial institutions Alternative financial services Payday lending Regulation 



Thanks to the referees for their comments and recommendations. The author would like to thank Mo Xiao, Gautam Gowrisankaran Ronald Oaxaca, and Price Fishback for guidance, support, and valuable comments and suggestions. Thanks also to Miguel Ramirez, Eric Stuen, Daniel Hickman, and D’Wayne Hodgin for additional valuable comments and suggestions. Research results and conclusions expressed are those of the author.


  1. Avery RB, Samolyk KA (2011) Payday loans versus pawn shops: the effects of loan fee limits on household use. Accessed 15 Mar 2013
  2. Bhutta N, Goldin J, Homonoff T (2016) Consumer borrowing after payday loan bans. J Law Econ 59(1):225–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bhutta N, Skiba P, Tobacman J (2015) Payday loan choices and consequences. J Money Credit Bank 47(2–3):223–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bourke N, Horowitz A, Roche T (2012) Payday lending in America: who borrows, where they borrow, and why. Pew Charitable Trusts, Washington, DC. Accessed 15 Mar 2013
  5. Burtzlaff D, Groce B (2011) Payday loan industry. Stephens Inc., Industry Report, p 6Google Scholar
  6. Carter SP (2015) Payday loan and pawnshop usage: the impact of allowing payday loan rollovers. J Consum Affairs 49(2):436–456CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. DeYoung R, Phillips R (2009) Payday loan pricing. Technical report, Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas CityGoogle Scholar
  8. Dolmetsch C (2008) Subprime collapse to global financial meltdown: Timeline. Bloomberg News, Oct 13Google Scholar
  9. Duke E (2009) Containing the crisis and promoting economic recovery. Speech given at the women in housing and finance annual meeting, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  10. Flannery MJ, Samolyk KA et al (2005). Payday lending: do the costs justify the price? In: Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago Proceedings, Number 949Google Scholar
  11. Huckstep A (2007) Payday lending: do outrageous prices necessarily mean outrageous profits. Fordham J Corp Financ Law 12:203Google Scholar
  12. Lawrence EC, Elliehausen G (2008) A comparative analysis of payday loan customers. Contemp Econ Policy 26(2):299–316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. McKernan S-M, Ratcliffe C, Kuehn D (2013) Prohibitions, price caps, and disclosures: a look at state policies and alternative financial product use. J Econ Behav Org 95:207–223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Melzer BT (2011) The real costs of credit access: evidence from the payday lending market. Q J Econ 126(1):517–555CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Morgan DP, Strain MR, Seblani I (2012) How payday credit access affects overdrafts and other outcomes. J Money Credit Bank 44(2–3):519–531CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Morse A (2011) Payday lenders: heroes or villains? J Financ Econ 102(1):28–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. National Conference of State Legislatures (2013) Payday lending statutes. Accessed 15 Mar 2013
  18. Parker JA, Clark RD (2013) Payday lending in Ohio. Ohio Legislative Service CommissionGoogle Scholar
  19. Prager RA et al (2009) Determinants of the locations of payday lenders, pawnshops and check-cashing outlets. Federal Reserve Board, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  20. Skiba PM, Tobacman J (2009) Do payday loans cause bankruptcy?Google Scholar
  21. Stegman MA (2007) Payday lending. J Econ Perspect 21(1):169–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Stegman MA, Faris R (2003) Payday lending: a business model that encourages chronic borrowing. Econ Dev Q 17(1):8–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Zinman J (2010) Restricting consumer credit access: household survey evidence on effects around the Oregon rate cap. J Bank Finance 34(3):546–556CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Business, College of Business and EconomicsUniversity of IdahoMoscowUSA

Personalised recommendations