对有无信贷捆绑的天气指数保险的模糊态度和需求:肯尼亚的实验证据

IF 4.3 2区 经济学 Q1 BUSINESS, FINANCE
Francesco Cecchi , Robert Lensink , Edwin Slingerland
{"title":"对有无信贷捆绑的天气指数保险的模糊态度和需求:肯尼亚的实验证据","authors":"Francesco Cecchi ,&nbsp;Robert Lensink ,&nbsp;Edwin Slingerland","doi":"10.1016/j.jbef.2023.100885","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>We investigate the impact of ambiguity attitudes on the willingness-to-pay (WTP) for index insurance among female smallholders in Kenya. We gauge incentive-compatible measures of ambiguity aversion and insensitivity in the domain of gains and losses, as well as loss aversion. Next, we setup a framed experiment to measure WTP for insurance with basis risk. For a random subsample we introduce an alternative ‘rebate’ insurance, comparable to an insurance purchased through a loan – repaid in good years and deducted from payout in bad ones – that is expectedly more palatable for the loss averse. We find that ambiguity aversion significantly increases WTP for the standalone insurance, while loss aversion reduces it as expected. The former result is seemingly at odds with previous evidence from the field, but is consistent with a setting in which insurance ambiguity engenders relatively less disutility compared to the vagaries of weather. We show that this apparent divergence is not caused by differences in the method used to estimate ambiguity aversion compared to existing field studies. Rather, we exploit exogenous variation in the familiarity with insurance within our sample to show that it is explained away by the role of experience with the novel technology—a previously underestimated mediator. Ambiguity aversion hinders adoption at early stages but increases when the insurance is better understood. The rebate scenario, instead, all but cancels the effect of loss aversion on WTP, but the increased contractual ambiguity results in significantly lower bids by the ambiguity averse. In the lab, the WTP for rebate-type insurance-credit bundles is not different from that of the actuarially equivalent standalone insurance, implying that evidence from the field on greater uptake for the former may be attributable to liquidity constraints and time discounting effects, rather than to behavioural traits.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":47026,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214635023000990/pdfft?md5=334fc28fdfa5d65857c266727091ae34&pid=1-s2.0-S2214635023000990-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Ambiguity attitudes and demand for weather index insurance with and without a credit bundle: experimental evidence from Kenya\",\"authors\":\"Francesco Cecchi ,&nbsp;Robert Lensink ,&nbsp;Edwin Slingerland\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jbef.2023.100885\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>We investigate the impact of ambiguity attitudes on the willingness-to-pay (WTP) for index insurance among female smallholders in Kenya. We gauge incentive-compatible measures of ambiguity aversion and insensitivity in the domain of gains and losses, as well as loss aversion. Next, we setup a framed experiment to measure WTP for insurance with basis risk. For a random subsample we introduce an alternative ‘rebate’ insurance, comparable to an insurance purchased through a loan – repaid in good years and deducted from payout in bad ones – that is expectedly more palatable for the loss averse. We find that ambiguity aversion significantly increases WTP for the standalone insurance, while loss aversion reduces it as expected. The former result is seemingly at odds with previous evidence from the field, but is consistent with a setting in which insurance ambiguity engenders relatively less disutility compared to the vagaries of weather. We show that this apparent divergence is not caused by differences in the method used to estimate ambiguity aversion compared to existing field studies. Rather, we exploit exogenous variation in the familiarity with insurance within our sample to show that it is explained away by the role of experience with the novel technology—a previously underestimated mediator. Ambiguity aversion hinders adoption at early stages but increases when the insurance is better understood. The rebate scenario, instead, all but cancels the effect of loss aversion on WTP, but the increased contractual ambiguity results in significantly lower bids by the ambiguity averse. In the lab, the WTP for rebate-type insurance-credit bundles is not different from that of the actuarially equivalent standalone insurance, implying that evidence from the field on greater uptake for the former may be attributable to liquidity constraints and time discounting effects, rather than to behavioural traits.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47026,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-12-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214635023000990/pdfft?md5=334fc28fdfa5d65857c266727091ae34&pid=1-s2.0-S2214635023000990-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"96\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214635023000990\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"经济学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"BUSINESS, FINANCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214635023000990","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BUSINESS, FINANCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

我们研究了模糊态度对肯尼亚女性小农户指数保险支付意愿(WTP)的影响。我们对收益和损失领域的模糊厌恶和不敏感以及损失厌恶进行了激励兼容测量。接下来,我们设置了一个框架实验来衡量基差风险保险的 WTP。对于一个随机子样本,我们引入了另一种 "回扣 "保险,类似于通过贷款购买的保险--在好的年份偿还,在坏的年份从赔付中扣除--这对损失厌恶者来说更容易接受。我们发现,模糊厌恶会显著增加独立保险的 WTP,而损失厌恶则会降低 WTP。前者的结果似乎与之前的实地证据不符,但却与保险的模糊性与变化无常的天气相比所产生的无用性相对较小的情况相一致。我们的研究表明,与现有的实地研究相比,这种表面上的差异并不是由于估算模糊厌恶程度的方法不同造成的。相反,我们利用样本中对保险的熟悉程度的外生差异,证明这种差异可以通过对新技术的经验作用来解释--这种作用是以前被低估的中介因素。模糊厌恶在早期阶段阻碍了人们对保险的采用,但当人们对保险有了更深入的了解后,这种厌恶就会增加。相反,回扣方案几乎抵消了损失厌恶对 WTP 的影响,但合同模糊性的增加导致模糊厌恶者的出价显著降低。在实验室中,回扣型保险-信贷捆绑产品的 WTP 与精算等价的独立保险的 WTP 并无不同,这意味着来自现场的证据表明前者更容易被接受可能是由于流动性限制和时间贴现效应,而非行为特征。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Ambiguity attitudes and demand for weather index insurance with and without a credit bundle: experimental evidence from Kenya

We investigate the impact of ambiguity attitudes on the willingness-to-pay (WTP) for index insurance among female smallholders in Kenya. We gauge incentive-compatible measures of ambiguity aversion and insensitivity in the domain of gains and losses, as well as loss aversion. Next, we setup a framed experiment to measure WTP for insurance with basis risk. For a random subsample we introduce an alternative ‘rebate’ insurance, comparable to an insurance purchased through a loan – repaid in good years and deducted from payout in bad ones – that is expectedly more palatable for the loss averse. We find that ambiguity aversion significantly increases WTP for the standalone insurance, while loss aversion reduces it as expected. The former result is seemingly at odds with previous evidence from the field, but is consistent with a setting in which insurance ambiguity engenders relatively less disutility compared to the vagaries of weather. We show that this apparent divergence is not caused by differences in the method used to estimate ambiguity aversion compared to existing field studies. Rather, we exploit exogenous variation in the familiarity with insurance within our sample to show that it is explained away by the role of experience with the novel technology—a previously underestimated mediator. Ambiguity aversion hinders adoption at early stages but increases when the insurance is better understood. The rebate scenario, instead, all but cancels the effect of loss aversion on WTP, but the increased contractual ambiguity results in significantly lower bids by the ambiguity averse. In the lab, the WTP for rebate-type insurance-credit bundles is not different from that of the actuarially equivalent standalone insurance, implying that evidence from the field on greater uptake for the former may be attributable to liquidity constraints and time discounting effects, rather than to behavioural traits.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
13.20
自引率
6.10%
发文量
75
审稿时长
69 days
期刊介绍: Behavioral and Experimental Finance represent lenses and approaches through which we can view financial decision-making. The aim of the journal is to publish high quality research in all fields of finance, where such research is carried out with a behavioral perspective and / or is carried out via experimental methods. It is open to but not limited to papers which cover investigations of biases, the role of various neurological markers in financial decision making, national and organizational culture as it impacts financial decision making, sentiment and asset pricing, the design and implementation of experiments to investigate financial decision making and trading, methodological experiments, and natural experiments. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance welcomes full-length and short letter papers in the area of behavioral finance and experimental finance. The focus is on rapid dissemination of high-impact research in these areas.
×
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