Disaster Risk, Moral Hazard, and Public Policy

Thomas A. Husted, David Nickerson
{"title":"Disaster Risk, Moral Hazard, and Public Policy","authors":"Thomas A. Husted, David Nickerson","doi":"10.1093/acrefore/9780199389407.013.195","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Natural disasters pose a significant and rapidly growing burden to society, causing over a million deaths and worldwide economic losses in the trillions of dollars in the last twenty years. Concerned over the extent to which their populations are exposed to disaster risk, policymakers in disaster-prone countries strive to increase the penetration of disaster insurance from its relatively low current level and wish to arrest the increasing share of public liability for private losses arising from rising public expenditures on disaster recovery.\n Although evidence regarding disaster risk and insurance suggests that individuals respond to their economic incentives when deciding on the degree to which to expose their property and other to risk from a recurrent disaster, potential inefficiencies in private insurance markets can distort these individual incentives and result in underinsurance and excessive exposure. Current research into whether such apparent market inefficiencies are primarily attributed to the behavior of private market participants or to the adverse incentives arising from current programs of disaster aid, regulation and other public policies is of fundamental importance to attaining these policy objectives.\n This article critically assesses the current state of mainstream economic and political research into disasters, public policy, and household behavior toward disaster risk. Findings of the most important and influential empirical and theoretical studies over the last 30 years are described, as well as limits on the robustness and interpretation of these findings arising from the characteristics of economic data on disasters and potential bias in measuring the determinants of disaster insurance coverage. Also discussed are both theoretical and empirical evidence that moral hazard on the part of households, insurance firms, and elected officials results in misallocations of private coverage; and it is demonstrated that, exactly contrary to the objectives of public policy, current programs of disaster aid in the presence of moral hazard create incentives for households to minimize, rather than maximize, market coverage of their exposure to disaster risk. The conclusion presents and proves a proposition, original to this article, that any compensatory public aid program is necessarily a source of economic inefficiency and, conditional on net losses, decreases economic welfare.","PeriodicalId":300110,"journal":{"name":"Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Natural Hazard Science","volume":"25 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-10-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Natural Hazard Science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780199389407.013.195","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Natural disasters pose a significant and rapidly growing burden to society, causing over a million deaths and worldwide economic losses in the trillions of dollars in the last twenty years. Concerned over the extent to which their populations are exposed to disaster risk, policymakers in disaster-prone countries strive to increase the penetration of disaster insurance from its relatively low current level and wish to arrest the increasing share of public liability for private losses arising from rising public expenditures on disaster recovery. Although evidence regarding disaster risk and insurance suggests that individuals respond to their economic incentives when deciding on the degree to which to expose their property and other to risk from a recurrent disaster, potential inefficiencies in private insurance markets can distort these individual incentives and result in underinsurance and excessive exposure. Current research into whether such apparent market inefficiencies are primarily attributed to the behavior of private market participants or to the adverse incentives arising from current programs of disaster aid, regulation and other public policies is of fundamental importance to attaining these policy objectives. This article critically assesses the current state of mainstream economic and political research into disasters, public policy, and household behavior toward disaster risk. Findings of the most important and influential empirical and theoretical studies over the last 30 years are described, as well as limits on the robustness and interpretation of these findings arising from the characteristics of economic data on disasters and potential bias in measuring the determinants of disaster insurance coverage. Also discussed are both theoretical and empirical evidence that moral hazard on the part of households, insurance firms, and elected officials results in misallocations of private coverage; and it is demonstrated that, exactly contrary to the objectives of public policy, current programs of disaster aid in the presence of moral hazard create incentives for households to minimize, rather than maximize, market coverage of their exposure to disaster risk. The conclusion presents and proves a proposition, original to this article, that any compensatory public aid program is necessarily a source of economic inefficiency and, conditional on net losses, decreases economic welfare.
灾害风险、道德风险和公共政策
自然灾害给社会造成了重大和迅速增长的负担,在过去二十年中造成一百多万人死亡和世界范围内数万亿美元的经济损失。灾害易发国家的政策制定者对其人口面临灾害风险的程度感到关切,努力提高灾害保险的渗透率,使其从目前相对较低的水平提高,并希望遏制因灾害恢复方面的公共支出增加而引起的私人损失的公共责任所占的份额不断增加。虽然有关灾害风险和保险的证据表明,个人在决定将其财产和他人暴露于经常性灾害风险的程度时,会对其经济激励作出反应,但私人保险市场的潜在低效率可能扭曲这些个人激励,导致保险不足和过度暴露。目前研究这种明显的市场效率低下是否主要归因于私人市场参与者的行为,还是归因于当前灾难援助、监管和其他公共政策项目产生的不利激励,对于实现这些政策目标至关重要。本文批判性地评估了灾害、公共政策和家庭应对灾害风险行为的主流经济和政治研究的现状。描述了过去30年来最重要和最有影响力的实证和理论研究的结果,以及由于灾害经济数据的特点和在衡量灾害保险覆盖决定因素方面的潜在偏差,对这些结果的稳健性和解释造成的限制。还讨论了理论和经验证据,即家庭、保险公司和民选官员的道德风险导致私人保险的错配;研究表明,与公共政策的目标完全相反,在存在道德风险的情况下,当前的灾害援助计划会激励家庭将其暴露于灾害风险的市场覆盖面最小化,而不是最大化。结论提出并证明了本文最初提出的一个命题,即任何补偿性公共援助计划都必然是经济效率低下的根源,并且以净损失为条件,会降低经济福利。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信