Sociology CompassVolume 14, Issue 2 e12761 CORRIGENDUMFree Access Corrigendum This article corrects the following: Sociology of Debt: States, Credit Markets, and Indebted Citizens Basak Kus, Volume 9Issue 3Sociology Compass pages: 212-223 First Published online: March 5, 2015 First published: 03 February 2020 https://doi.org/10.1111/soc4.12761AboutSectionsPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Kus, B. (2015). Sociology of debt: States, credit markets, and indebted citizens. Sociology Compass, 9(3), 212–223. https://doi.org/10.1111/soc4.12247 The author wishes to bring to the readers' attention the following errors in the aforementioned paper. In the “Creditworthiness” section on page 218, two direct quotes from the article by Fourcade and Healy (2013) were not correctly attributed. The correct text should be the following: Fourcade and Healy's (2013) recent work offer a sophisticated analysis of how markets “see” people into different categories in terms of their “creditworthiness”. In earlier times, Fourcade and Healy inform us that assessing the creditworthiness of individuals was the work of bank or retail finance officers who met potential clients in person and evaluated them based on their physical appearance, their demeanor, and even local gossip. Over time, the process became more standardized and more quantitative. By the 1950s, credit reporting companies had already begun to make probabilistic forecasts based on statistical analyses of longitudinal population data. In the 1970s, credit scoring—that is, “the numerical evaluation of a person's reliability and integrity based on his or her individual credit file”—was formally established as an objective way of appraising somebody's creditworthiness (p. 563). Fourcade and Healy note that these developments are believed to have brought a degree of fairness to the credit markets because the new system focused on individual traits rather than group credit histories. Though there is evidence that these new techniques have increased access to the financial system across the board, there are still stratifying effects of differential lending based on classification. Inequities in the market are “less a matter of access to credit and abandonment and more a matter of the differential interest rates that borrowers pay” (Langley, 2009, p. 168). As Fourcade and Healy explain, “scoring has expanded the reach of the market while opening the door to new forms of classification with powerful stratifying effects” (p. 564). The expansion in the supply of subprime credit market—that is, the market that provides credit to people with poor credit histories and little in down payments—reflects this. Citizens who do not qualify for conventional loans can still access credit if they were willing to pay a higher interest rate (Fligstein and Goldstein, 2010). We apologize for the errors. REFERENCE Fourcade, M., & Healy, K. (2013). Classification situations: Life-chances in the neoliberal era. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 38(8), 559– 572. Volume14, Issue2February 2020e12761 ReferencesRelatedInformation