Abstract
This literature synthesis examines the dual role of financial technology (fintech) and digital credit markets in smoothing household income shocks whilst simultaneously deepening debt burdens. Drawing upon empirical studies from emerging and developed economies, the review investigates the conditions under which expanded credit access facilitates consumption smoothing versus those circumstances that precipitate financial distress. The analysis reveals that digital financial inclusion significantly reduces household consumption volatility, particularly when combined with robust regulatory frameworks, higher financial literacy, and appropriately structured loan products. Conversely, evidence demonstrates that fintech credit deepens debt vulnerability when characterised by unsecured, short-term lending to marginalised borrowers operating within weak regulatory environments. Key findings indicate that fintech borrowers exhibit higher default rates than comparable traditional bank borrowers, whilst rapid digital lending expansion outpaces regulatory capacity in numerous jurisdictions. The synthesis concludes that fintech’s impact on household financial stability remains contingent upon product design, borrower characteristics, and institutional oversight. Policy implications emphasise the necessity for regulatory frameworks that preserve the consumption-smoothing benefits of digital credit whilst mitigating systemic risks and protecting vulnerable populations from debt traps.
Introduction
The proliferation of financial technology has fundamentally transformed credit markets across both developed and emerging economies, generating profound implications for household financial stability. Fintech platforms have dramatically expanded credit access to populations historically excluded from traditional banking services, promising enhanced financial inclusion and improved capacity to manage income volatility (Agarwal and Chua, 2020). Yet this expansion simultaneously raises critical questions regarding whether such credit access genuinely smooths economic shocks or merely deepens household indebtedness, creating new vulnerabilities within financial systems.
Understanding this dynamic carries substantial academic, policy, and practical significance. Academically, the fintech credit phenomenon challenges established theories of consumption smoothing and household finance, requiring refinement of models that inadequately capture digital lending’s distinctive characteristics. From a policy perspective, regulators worldwide grapple with balancing financial innovation against consumer protection and systemic stability, decisions with far-reaching consequences for economic resilience. Practically, millions of households make daily borrowing decisions through digital platforms, often without fully comprehending the long-term implications for their financial wellbeing.
The theoretical foundations for examining fintech credit derive from the permanent income hypothesis and life-cycle consumption models, which posit that rational households borrow and save to smooth consumption across periods of income fluctuation (Friedman, 1957). Traditional credit markets have long facilitated such smoothing, albeit with significant access constraints that excluded substantial population segments. Fintech ostensibly addresses these constraints through algorithmic credit scoring, reduced transaction costs, and digital delivery mechanisms that extend credit to previously underserved markets.
However, the consumption-smoothing narrative requires critical examination. An alternative perspective suggests that expanded credit access, particularly for vulnerable populations, may constitute debt deepening rather than genuine smoothing. Under this framework, easy credit enables consumption beyond sustainable levels, generating debt burdens that amplify rather than mitigate economic shocks. The distinction between these outcomes proves empirically complex, as both mechanisms may operate simultaneously within the same credit market.
This synthesis addresses these concerns through systematic examination of recent empirical literature spanning multiple jurisdictions and methodological approaches. The analysis focuses particularly on evidence from China, which has experienced unprecedented fintech credit expansion, alongside comparative evidence from Latin America, Southeast Asia, and cross-country studies of emerging economies. By synthesising this diverse evidence base, the review aims to identify the conditions that distinguish beneficial consumption smoothing from harmful debt deepening, thereby informing both academic understanding and policy development.
Aim and objectives
The primary aim of this literature synthesis is to critically evaluate the extent to which fintech and digital credit markets function as mechanisms for smoothing household income shocks versus contributing to debt deepening and financial vulnerability.
To achieve this aim, the following specific objectives guide the analysis:
1. To synthesise empirical evidence regarding fintech credit’s effects on household consumption volatility and financial stability across diverse economic contexts.
2. To identify and categorise the household, product, and institutional characteristics associated with beneficial consumption-smoothing outcomes versus adverse debt-deepening consequences.
3. To evaluate the role of regulatory frameworks and traditional banking sector integration in moderating fintech credit’s impact on household financial outcomes.
4. To assess the differential effects of digital lending on marginalised populations, including rural, informal sector, and low-income households.
5. To develop evidence-based recommendations for policy frameworks that maximise fintech credit’s consumption-smoothing benefits whilst mitigating risks of debt traps and systemic instability.
Methodology
This study employs a structured literature synthesis methodology to examine the relationship between fintech credit markets and household financial outcomes. The approach integrates evidence from peer-reviewed empirical studies, working papers from recognised institutions, and reports from international financial organisations to construct a comprehensive understanding of fintech credit’s dual nature.
The literature search strategy targeted academic databases including Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar, employing search terms encompassing fintech, digital finance, financial inclusion, consumption smoothing, household debt, and credit markets. Additional searches incorporated specific platform types (mobile money, digital lending, peer-to-peer lending) and geographic specifications (emerging markets, China, developing economies). The search prioritised publications from 2018 onwards to capture recent developments in rapidly evolving fintech markets, whilst including foundational earlier works where relevant.
Inclusion criteria required studies to present original empirical findings regarding fintech or digital credit’s effects on household consumption, borrowing behaviour, default rates, or financial stability. Studies employing quantitative methods (econometric analysis, structural modelling, panel data analysis) received primary attention, supplemented by qualitative investigations providing contextual depth. Exclusion criteria eliminated purely theoretical papers without empirical validation, studies focused exclusively on firm-level or macroeconomic aggregates without household-level implications, and sources from non-peer-reviewed outlets lacking academic rigour.
The analytical framework organised findings according to three primary dimensions: evidence of consumption-smoothing effects, evidence of debt-deepening consequences, and moderating factors determining which outcome predominates. Within each dimension, studies were further categorised by geographic scope, methodological approach, and specific fintech product types examined. This structure facilitates identification of patterns across diverse contexts whilst acknowledging methodological and contextual heterogeneity.
Critical appraisal of included studies considered potential biases including selection effects (fintech adoption is non-random), endogeneity concerns (reverse causality between financial access and consumption stability), data limitations (reliance on self-reported survey data), and generalisability constraints (findings from specific contexts may not transfer to other settings). Where studies acknowledged and addressed such limitations through instrumental variable approaches, difference-in-differences designs, or robustness checks, these methodological strengths informed the synthesis’s conclusions.
Literature review
Theoretical foundations of credit markets and consumption smoothing
The theoretical basis for credit markets’ role in consumption smoothing derives from foundational contributions in household finance theory. Milton Friedman’s permanent income hypothesis established that rational consumers smooth consumption across periods by borrowing during low-income periods and saving during high-income periods, rather than allowing consumption to fluctuate with transitory income changes (Friedman, 1957). Franco Modigliani’s life-cycle hypothesis extended this framework to encompass borrowing patterns across the entire lifespan, predicting that households borrow in early career stages, accumulate assets during peak earning years, and dissave during retirement.
These theoretical frameworks implicitly assume functioning credit markets that allow households to borrow against future income. Where credit constraints bind, households cannot smooth consumption effectively, leading to welfare losses from excessive consumption volatility. This theoretical prediction motivates policy interest in financial inclusion: expanding credit access should enable previously constrained households to achieve smoother consumption paths, enhancing welfare.
However, behavioural economics scholarship challenges the rationality assumptions underlying these models. Research on present bias, overconfidence, and financial illiteracy suggests that expanded credit access may not uniformly improve welfare, particularly when borrowers systematically underestimate future repayment burdens or overestimate future income prospects (Laibson, 1997). Under such conditions, credit expansion may facilitate overconsumption and debt accumulation rather than optimal smoothing.
Evidence of consumption-smoothing effects
Substantial empirical evidence supports fintech credit’s consumption-smoothing function under appropriate conditions. Song et al. (2024) provide compelling evidence from Chinese household panel data demonstrating that digital inclusive finance significantly reduces household consumption volatility. Their analysis reveals that this smoothing effect operates through multiple channels: direct credit access enabling temporal consumption reallocation, encouragement of entrepreneurship that stabilises income streams, and reduction of income volatility itself through diversified economic activities. The smoothing benefits prove particularly pronounced for financially literate households with reliable internet connectivity, suggesting complementarity between digital infrastructure and human capital.
Luo, Sun and Zhou (2022) corroborate these findings through analysis of China Family Panel Studies data, demonstrating that fintech innovation promotes household consumption through enhanced borrowing capacity and improved intertemporal allocation. Their estimates indicate economically significant consumption increases attributable to fintech access, with effects concentrated among households facing binding credit constraints under traditional banking arrangements.
Cross-country evidence extends these findings beyond the Chinese context. Cavoli and Gopalan (2023) analyse panel data from 85 emerging and developing economies, finding that broader financial inclusion significantly reduces aggregate consumption volatility. Their results indicate that expanded domestic credit markets enhance risk-sharing capacity, even when complete insurance against idiosyncratic shocks remains unattainable. The findings suggest that financial inclusion’s consumption-smoothing benefits generalise across diverse institutional and economic contexts.
Lai et al. (2020) provide nuanced evidence from China demonstrating that digital financial inclusion facilitates consumption smoothing, though they simultaneously identify conditions under which such inclusion may generate debt trap risks. Their analysis emphasises that smoothing benefits depend critically on the nature of credit products and borrower characteristics, foreshadowing the contingent conclusions that emerge from comprehensive literature review.
At the macroeconomic level, Finkelstein-Shapiro, Mandelman and Nuguer (2022) develop a structural model examining fintech entry in emerging economies. Their simulations suggest that fintech expansion raises long-run output and consumption whilst making fintech-using firms less sensitive to domestic financial shocks, thereby reducing output volatility. Notably, however, their model predicts that relative credit volatility increases with fintech expansion, indicating potential trade-offs between average consumption levels and financial stability.
Evidence of debt-deepening consequences
Countervailing evidence demonstrates that fintech credit frequently deepens debt burdens rather than facilitating beneficial smoothing. Di Maggio and Yao (2018) provide influential evidence comparing fintech borrowers to similar traditional bank borrowers in the United States. Their analysis reveals that fintech borrowers exhibit significantly higher default rates than observationally equivalent bank borrowers, even controlling for credit scores and other risk indicators. This finding suggests that fintech lenders either employ laxer screening standards than traditional banks or systematically extend credit to borrower segments that banks appropriately reject.
Yue et al. (2021) directly examine whether digital finance constitutes financial inclusion or debt trap in the Chinese context. Their findings indicate that while digital finance increases credit participation rates, it simultaneously elevates household financial distress and debt trap risk. The analysis identifies vulnerable population segments—lower-income, less financially sophisticated, and more consumption-oriented households—as particularly susceptible to adverse outcomes from digital credit access.
Cross-country analysis by Anestiawati et al. (2025) compares fintech-related credit risk across emerging and developed economies, finding that non-performing loans rise systematically with digital lending expansion. Their comparative analysis reveals that regulatory and institutional capacity significantly moderates these effects, with stronger regulatory environments experiencing smaller increases in credit risk following fintech expansion.
Yuan, Fang and Sun (2023) examine fintech’s impact on the nexus between household debt and financial crises across a global sample. Their findings indicate that rapid digital lending growth increases both household leverage and the probability of systemic financial crises, particularly in jurisdictions where regulatory frameworks have not kept pace with technological innovation. This evidence suggests that debt-deepening effects extend beyond individual household distress to generate systemic stability concerns.
In the rural Chinese context, Wang and Chen (2025) find that digital financial inclusion increases household debt risks, with leverage ratios rising as digital credit access expands. Their analysis emphasises that rural households face particular vulnerability due to income volatility, limited financial literacy, and fewer alternative risk-management mechanisms compared to urban populations.
Fintech credit and marginalised populations
The effects of fintech credit on marginalised populations merit particular attention, as these groups represent both the primary beneficiaries of financial inclusion initiatives and those most vulnerable to debt-deepening consequences. Altaytas (2025) provides ethnographic evidence from Buenos Aires examining how fintech transforms credit access and household financial practices among low-income urban populations. The research documents that fintech platforms extend unsecured, small-ticket debt that normalises everyday borrowing, enabling tactical management of income instability but simultaneously limiting renegotiation flexibility when repayment difficulties arise. Households employ digital credit strategically to navigate economic precarity, yet the cumulative effect frequently transitions from financial inclusion to problematic indebtedness.
Bernards (2019) offers a critical analysis of fintech’s potential to address financial exclusion, examining psychometric credit scoring and alternative data approaches. The analysis reveals that whilst fintech creates new credit channels where traditional banks remain absent, the underlying infrastructure reproduces and potentially amplifies existing inequalities. Alternative data approaches may systematically disadvantage populations with irregular income patterns or limited digital footprints, whilst psychometric scoring raises concerns regarding algorithmic bias and transparency.
Hu, Huang and Liu (2024) examine consumer credit through a major Chinese technology platform, documenting how big tech lending has transformed credit access for previously underserved populations. Their evidence indicates substantial expansion of credit availability to consumers without traditional credit histories, though the long-term implications for household financial stability remain uncertain.
Moderating factors determining outcomes
The literature identifies several factors that moderate whether fintech credit produces smoothing or debt-deepening outcomes. Regulatory framework quality emerges as a primary moderator, with stronger oversight associated with better household outcomes. Wu and Lin (2025) demonstrate that bank fintech integration under robust regulatory supervision improves corporate financial outcomes and reduces excessive short-term borrowing, suggesting that institutional context significantly shapes fintech credit’s effects.
Household financial literacy represents a critical individual-level moderator. Song et al. (2024) find that digital finance’s consumption-smoothing benefits concentrate among financially literate households, whilst Luo, Sun and Zhou (2022) demonstrate complementarity between fintech access and human capital in determining consumption outcomes. These findings suggest that financial education initiatives may enhance fintech credit’s beneficial effects whilst mitigating debt-deepening risks.
Product characteristics also significantly influence outcomes. Hou and Zhang (2025) examine how digital inclusive finance affects household debt maturity structure, finding that appropriate product design—particularly longer-maturity loans matched to income flows—produces better household outcomes than short-term, frequently-rolled-over credit. This evidence supports regulatory attention to product structure rather than solely credit access.
Integration with traditional banking infrastructure moderates fintech credit’s effects on both household and systemic outcomes. Junarsin et al. (2023) examine whether fintech lending expansion disturbs financial system stability in Indonesia, finding that integration with established banking supervision mechanisms mitigates stability risks. Lai et al. (2020) similarly emphasise that digital financial inclusion’s benefits depend on complementarity with traditional banking presence rather than substitution for it.
Discussion
The synthesised evidence reveals fintech credit markets as fundamentally dual-natured institutions capable of both smoothing income shocks and deepening debt burdens, with outcomes determined by the interaction of product design, borrower characteristics, and regulatory frameworks. This complexity challenges simplistic narratives that characterise fintech either as an unqualified positive for financial inclusion or as an inherently predatory lending mechanism.
Reconciling contradictory findings
The apparent contradiction between studies finding consumption-smoothing benefits and those documenting debt-deepening harms resolves when recognising that both mechanisms operate simultaneously, with their relative magnitudes varying across contexts. The evidence suggests that fintech credit approximates beneficial consumption smoothing when three conditions obtain: borrowers possess adequate financial literacy to evaluate credit costs and match borrowing to genuine income-volatility management needs; credit products feature appropriate maturity structures that align repayment schedules with borrower income flows; and regulatory frameworks ensure adequate consumer protection and lender accountability.
Conversely, debt deepening predominates when credit extends to borrowers with limited financial sophistication facing irregular income streams, product designs feature short maturities encouraging frequent rollover and fee accumulation, and regulatory oversight fails to constrain predatory lending practices. Under these conditions, credit that superficially appears to smooth consumption actually facilitates overconsumption relative to permanent income, generating debt spirals that amplify rather than mitigate economic shocks.
This framework suggests that aggregate studies finding consumption-smoothing benefits may reflect average effects across populations with heterogeneous experiences. Within the same fintech credit market, financially sophisticated borrowers may genuinely smooth consumption whilst vulnerable borrowers accumulate unsustainable debt. Cross-country studies finding broader financial inclusion reduces consumption volatility need not contradict evidence that fintech borrowers experience higher default rates, as aggregate smoothing may coexist with concentrated distress among marginalised borrowers.
Implications for consumption-smoothing theory
The evidence challenges purely rational models of consumption smoothing by demonstrating systematic departures from theoretically optimal borrowing behaviour. If households employed credit purely to smooth consumption against transitory income shocks, default rates should be uncorrelated with the lending channel conditional on borrower characteristics. The robust finding that fintech borrowers default more frequently than similar bank borrowers suggests either that fintech extends credit to borrowers who would optimally be denied (lax screening) or that fintech credit terms or access patterns induce sub-optimal borrowing behaviour (debt deepening).
The behavioural economics perspective proves particularly relevant for explaining fintech-specific debt deepening. Digital platforms reduce transaction costs and psychological barriers to borrowing, potentially enabling impulsive credit decisions that rational agents would avoid. The evidence from Altaytas (2025) documenting normalisation of everyday borrowing supports this interpretation: fintech transforms credit from an exceptional response to major shocks into a routine mechanism for managing ordinary consumption, potentially undermining the distinction between transitory and permanent income that rational smoothing requires.
Policy implications
The synthesis generates several evidence-based policy implications. First, regulatory frameworks should distinguish between fintech credit products likely to facilitate genuine consumption smoothing and those structured in ways that predominantly deepen debt. Longer-maturity products with transparent pricing and clear income-matching features merit regulatory encouragement, whilst short-term, high-fee products that encourage frequent rollover warrant enhanced scrutiny and potentially usage restrictions for vulnerable populations.
Second, financial literacy initiatives should accompany fintech credit expansion, as the evidence consistently demonstrates that literacy moderates outcomes. Such initiatives should address not merely technical financial knowledge but also awareness of behavioural biases that digital credit environments may exploit.
Third, regulatory frameworks should require fintech lenders to share credit information with established credit bureaus, enabling borrowers’ responsible behaviour to build traditional credit access whilst preventing multiple simultaneous borrowing that obscures total debt burdens. The evidence that fintech borrowers default more frequently than bank borrowers partially reflects information asymmetries that comprehensive credit reporting could address.
Fourth, consumer protection regulations should ensure adequate renegotiation flexibility for borrowers experiencing repayment difficulties. The evidence from Altaytas (2025) that fintech lending limits renegotiation options relative to traditional banking relationships suggests potential for regulatory requirements ensuring workout procedures for distressed borrowers.
Limitations and research gaps
Several limitations constrain the conclusions that can be drawn from the existing literature. First, much evidence derives from China, whose unique combination of rapid fintech expansion, substantial rural-urban economic disparities, and specific regulatory environment may limit generalisability. Whilst cross-country studies provide broader context, detailed household-level analysis from diverse jurisdictions would strengthen confidence in generalised conclusions.
Second, the literature predominantly employs observational methods that face endogeneity challenges. Households that adopt fintech credit differ systematically from non-adopters, and these differences likely correlate with consumption volatility and debt outcomes. Whilst several studies employ instrumental variable or difference-in-differences approaches to address selection concerns, quasi-experimental variation in fintech access remains limited, constraining causal identification.
Third, the literature inadequately distinguishes between fintech credit types that differ substantially in their likely effects. Peer-to-peer lending platforms, digital bank lending, buy-now-pay-later arrangements, and big tech consumer credit likely generate heterogeneous household outcomes that aggregate analysis obscures. Future research should disaggregate fintech credit by product type and platform characteristics to enable more precise policy targeting.
Fourth, most studies examine relatively short time horizons, whilst debt-deepening consequences may manifest over longer periods as accumulated borrowing compounds. Longitudinal analysis tracking households across multiple years following fintech credit adoption would illuminate whether initial smoothing benefits persist or eventually transition to debt distress.
Conclusions
This synthesis has examined the dual role of fintech and digital credit markets in household financial management, evaluating evidence regarding consumption-smoothing benefits and debt-deepening risks. The analysis achieves its stated objectives by synthesising empirical evidence across diverse contexts, identifying moderating factors determining outcomes, evaluating regulatory and institutional influences, assessing effects on marginalised populations, and generating evidence-based policy recommendations.
The central conclusion emerging from this synthesis is that fintech credit’s effects on household financial stability are fundamentally contingent rather than uniformly positive or negative. Digital financial inclusion demonstrably reduces consumption volatility and enhances welfare for households possessing adequate financial literacy, stable income streams, and access to appropriately designed credit products within robust regulatory environments. Simultaneously, fintech credit deepens debt burdens and amplifies financial vulnerability for marginalised borrowers accessing poorly designed products within inadequate regulatory frameworks.
This contingent conclusion carries significant implications. For policymakers, it suggests that fintech regulation should focus on moderating factors—product design, transparency requirements, consumer protection, and financial literacy—rather than broadly encouraging or restricting digital credit access. For researchers, it highlights the need for nuanced analysis that identifies effect heterogeneity across borrower and product characteristics rather than estimating average effects that obscure divergent outcomes. For practitioners, it emphasises that responsible fintech lending requires attention to borrower welfare beyond mere credit extension.
The significance of these findings extends beyond academic understanding to pressing policy challenges. As fintech credit continues expanding globally, particularly in emerging economies with limited traditional banking infrastructure, decisions regarding regulatory frameworks will substantially determine whether this expansion enhances financial resilience or generates new crisis vulnerabilities. The evidence synthesised here provides a foundation for evidence-based policymaking that preserves fintech’s genuine benefits whilst protecting vulnerable populations from its potential harms.
Future research should prioritise several directions identified through this synthesis. Longitudinal studies tracking household outcomes over extended periods following fintech credit adoption would illuminate whether initial smoothing benefits persist or transition to debt distress. Quasi-experimental designs exploiting natural variation in fintech access would strengthen causal identification. Disaggregated analysis by fintech product type would enable more precise policy targeting. Cross-country comparative analysis would clarify how institutional and regulatory contexts moderate outcomes. Collectively, such research would advance understanding of fintech credit’s role in household financial management whilst informing regulatory frameworks that maximise welfare benefits and minimise systemic risks.
References
Agarwal, S. and Chua, Y. (2020) ‘FinTech and household finance: a review of the empirical literature’, *China Finance Review International*, 10(4), pp. 361–376. https://doi.org/10.1108/cfri-03-2020-0024
Altaytas, K. (2025) ‘From financial inclusion to indebtedness: How FinTech transforms credit access and household financial practices in Buenos Aires, Argentina’, *Finance and Society*, Early View. https://doi.org/10.1017/fas.2024.22
Anestiawati, C., Amanda, C., Khantinyano, H. and Agatha, A. (2025) ‘Bank FinTech and credit risk: comparison of selected emerging and developed countries’, *Studies in Economics and Finance*, Ahead of Print. https://doi.org/10.1108/sef-12-2023-0714
Bernards, N. (2019) ‘The poverty of fintech? Psychometrics, credit infrastructures, and the limits of financialization’, *Review of International Political Economy*, 26(5), pp. 815–838. https://doi.org/10.1080/09692290.2019.1597753
Cavoli, T. and Gopalan, S. (2023) ‘Does financial inclusion promote consumption smoothing? Evidence from emerging and developing economies’, *International Review of Economics and Finance*, 89(Part A), pp. 765–779. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iref.2023.07.037
Di Maggio, M. and Yao, V. (2018) ‘Fintech Borrowers: Lax-Screening or Cream-Skimming?’, *SSRN Working Paper*. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3224957
Finkelstein-Shapiro, A., Mandelman, F. and Nuguer, V. (2022) ‘Fintech Entry, Firm Financial Inclusion, and Macroeconomic Dynamics in Emerging Economies’, *Inter-American Development Bank Working Paper*, IDB-WP-1336. https://doi.org/10.18235/0003918
Friedman, M. (1957) *A Theory of the Consumption Function*. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Hou, J. and Zhang, Y. (2025) ‘Digital inclusive finance penetration and household debt maturity structure: Empirical estimation based on China Family Panel Studies Data’, *PLOS One*, 20(1), e0320080. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0320080
Hu, J., Huang, Y. and Liu, J. (2024) ‘The changing face of consumer credit: Evidence from a big tech platform in China’, *Pacific-Basin Finance Journal*, 84, 102254. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pacfin.2024.102254
Junarsin, E., Pelawi, R., Kristanto, J., Marcelin, I. and Pelawi, J. (2023) ‘Does fintech lending expansion disturb financial system stability? Evidence from Indonesia’, *Heliyon*, 9(7), e18384. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e18384
Laibson, D. (1997) ‘Golden eggs and hyperbolic discounting’, *Quarterly Journal of Economics*, 112(2), pp. 443–478.
Lai, J., Yan, I., Yi, X. and Zhang, H. (2020) ‘Digital Financial Inclusion and Consumption Smoothing in China’, *China and World Economy*, 28(4), pp. 64–93. https://doi.org/10.1111/cwe.12312
Luo, S., Sun, Y. and Zhou, R. (2022) ‘Can fintech innovation promote household consumption? Evidence from China family panel studies’, *International Review of Financial Analysis*, 82, 102137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.irfa.2022.102137
Song, Y., Gong, Y., Song, Y. and Chen, X. (2024) ‘Exploring the impact of digital inclusive finance on consumption volatility: Insights from household entrepreneurship and income volatility’, *Technological Forecasting and Social Change*, 200, 123179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2023.123179
Wang, Y. and Chen, Y. (2025) ‘Digital Financial Inclusion and Rural Household Debt Risks’, *International Journal of Finance and Economics*, Early View. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijfe.70028
Wu, W. and Lin, X. (2025) ‘The Impact of Bank Fintech on Corporate Short-Term Debt for Long-Term Use—Based on the Perspective of Financial Risk’, *International Journal of Financial Studies*, 13(2), 68. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijfs13020068
Yuan, G., Fang, J. and Sun, Y. (2023) ‘The impact of Fintech on the nexus between household debt and financial crises: A global perspective’, *Economic Modelling*, 119, 106589. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econmod.2023.106589
Yue, P., Korkmaz, A., Yin, Z. and Zhou, H. (2021) ‘The rise of digital finance: Financial inclusion or debt trap?’, *Finance Research Letters*, 47, 102604. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.frl.2021.102604
