Cui bono?

At a conference on consumer bankruptcy policy over the weekend in Athens, Greece (a place that knows all too well about consumer financial distress) and again today in class, I confronted a really nagging, fundamental problem of bankruptcy policy: For whose benefit do modern societies develop consumer bankruptcy laws, and do these systems actually deliver such benefits? In my view, the most convincing and common explanation for why existing systems offer debt relief to consumers is that relieving their suffering redounds to the greater benefit of society at large (see, e.g., section I.9, pp. 26-40, in the World Bank's Report). The problem is that I know of no empirical proof of this essential assertion. Indeed, to the contrary, I have seen well done empirical evaluations of the fresh start that suggest that, at least in the US bankruptcy system, consumer debtors are not being reinvigorated and reintroduced into the productive, open-credit society.

I'm no empiricist, but it strikes me as potentially impossible to substantiate the premise of consumer bankruptcy policy empirically. It would be a monumental task to even formulate a research agenda for such a question. How would/could anyone ever prove that society benefits from relieving consumers of overburdening debts? Has anyone tried? Am I missing something I should be citing? Is anyone attempting to answer the question today? Any leads welcome.