Fair Models in Credit: Intersectional Discrimination and the Amplification of Inequity

TL;DR

This paper investigates how intersectional identities influence credit allocation fairness in microfinance, revealing that automated systems can perpetuate complex inequities beyond protected characteristics, emphasizing the need for more nuanced fairness assessments.

Contribution

It introduces an intersectional analysis of credit fairness, highlighting how multiple social categories impact algorithmic bias in microfinance, which is underexplored in current literature.

Findings

Intersectional identities affect credit access patterns.

Sensitive attributes like parental status influence fairness.

Superficial fairness can mask deeper inequities.

Abstract

The increasing usage of new data sources and machine learning (ML) technology in credit modeling raises concerns with regards to potentially unfair decision-making that rely on protected characteristics (e.g., race, sex, age) or other socio-economic and demographic data. The authors demonstrate the impact of such algorithmic bias in the microfinance context. Difficulties in assessing credit are disproportionately experienced among vulnerable groups, however, very little is known about inequities in credit allocation between groups defined, not only by single, but by multiple and intersecting social categories. Drawing from the intersectionality paradigm, the study examines intersectional horizontal inequities in credit access by gender, age, marital status, single parent status and number of children. This paper utilizes data from the Spanish microfinance market as its context to demonstrate how pluralistic realities and intersectional identities can shape patterns of credit allocation when using automated decision-making systems. With ML technology being oblivious to societal good or bad, we find that a more thorough examination of intersectionality can enhance the algorithmic fairness lens to more authentically empower action for equitable outcomes and present a fairer path forward. We demonstrate that while on a high-level, fairness may exist superficially, unfairness can exacerbate at lower levels given combinatorial effects; in other words, the core fairness problem may be more complicated than current literature demonstrates. We find that in addition to legally protected characteristics, sensitive attributes such as single parent status and number of children can result in imbalanced harm. We discuss the implications of these findings for the financial services industry.